Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Named the "Most Reputable Company"

An anonymous reader writes "Amazon has been named the most reputable company in the US this year (up from 21st place last year), according to the sixth annual list of the 150 Most Reputable Companies from advisory firm Reputation Institute (RI), in partnership with Forbes Media. The list is based on RI's US RepTrak Pulse Study, which measures trust, esteem, admiration, and good feelings consumers have towards the largest 150 companies based on revenue in the US. The ratings are analyzed from nearly 33,000 online consumer responses taken in January and February."

199 comments

  1. They obviously didn't poll any state governments. by Scowler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At some point, we have to figure out how e-tailers can and should responsibly collect sales taxes. Amazon could be helping that process, instead of fighting it tooth and nail.

  2. Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  3. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At some point, we have to figure out how e-tailers can and should responsibly collect sales taxes. Amazon could be helping that process, instead of fighting it tooth and nail.

    One of Amazon's advantages is that they don't require sales taxes, which can often result in the product costing less even with shipping charges. Once they are required to collect sales taxes they'll lose that price advantage and will likely lose sales because of it. It is not in their corporate interest to 'help' in the process.

  4. Still not enough by toby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...to make me regret closing my account in protest at the treatment of Wikileaks.

    Fuck Amazon.

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:Still not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Amazon.

    2. Re:Still not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks went down for a couple of hours and are still releasing excellent information (Ecuador lately).

      If anything they got the Streisand effect (not that Wikileaks needs that).

      Amazon is a good retailer, especially with DRM free MP3 songs for $1. And good if not great prices on other things (always check SlickDeals first though...).

    3. Re:Still not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, you sure showed them! They'll be folding any day now with the lack of your minimum wage dollars.

    4. Re:Still not enough by slashqwerty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wikileaks broke Amazon's rules.

      What rules were those? According to the article those rules were:

      WikiLeaks "doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content,"

      This is clearly targeted at copyright infringers. Any content written by a US government employee in the course of their job is public domain.

      Amazon's terms of service also require that content "will not cause injury to any person or entity." Yet he said "it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."

      Wikileaks has not release 250,000 cables. Today, after four months of redacting and releasing documents Wikileaks has released a grand total of 6,321 documents.

      You have got to be pretty gullible to believe government pressure had nothing to do with Amazon's decision.

    5. Re:Still not enough by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      What laws did they break, Mr. Propaganda Man? Who you shillin for anyway? Heh, 'red cross'...You know Pablo Escobar built hospitals too?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    6. Re:Still not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take the corn cob outta yer ass already.

    7. Re:Still not enough by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Did you close your credit card accounts too?

    8. Re:Still not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck you

    9. Re:Still not enough by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      Yay! My sentiments exactly.

      I don't know who decides what constitutes "most reputable", but they sure as hell aren't any of my friends, a large percentage of whom thoroughly dislike Amazon over its treatment of WikiLeaks. That disqualified them for any "reputable" list I might keep.

    10. Re:Still not enough by schnell · · Score: 2

      Any content written by a US government employee in the course of their job is public domain.

      Not just false, but extremely, incredibly, amazingly false.

      While US government information is not assigned copyright protection per se, that does not make it public domain in terms of rights for distribution. The US government has the rights by law to restrict dissemination of government information based on its classification of the sensitivity of that information. There are extensive and rigorous legal and operational protections for classified information in the United States as well as in most other countries. So in your example above when Amazon talks about Amazon "not control[ling] all the rights" to the content, that's what they mean, not its copyright status.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    11. Re:Still not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of reasons to dislike Amazon, their boycott of a terrorist website is not one of them.

    12. Re:Still not enough by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Not just false, but extremely, incredibly, amazingly false.

      maybe it should be..

    13. Re:Still not enough by xclr8r · · Score: 1

      And let us not forget pulling peoples purchased e-book of 1984 off their kindles.

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
    14. Re:Still not enough by Slayer · · Score: 1

      Regardless of whether you love or hate wikileaks, a book store and service provider which censors content based on random telephone calls from US senators is neither trustworthy nor reputable. This lovely award Amazon just won smells very fishy and seems to be either a PR gimmick or a thank you from some political organization. You know, I could pay people to give me all kinds or first prizes and gold medals ...

    15. Re:Still not enough by horza · · Score: 1

      I used to buy an awful lot from Amazon, in fact it was the principal place I did all my shopping, but also stopped since their treatment of Wikileaks. For books I now buy here: http://www.abebooks.co.uk/. For electronics this is good: http://www.mymemory.co.uk/.

      I also now find myself with more cash after I closed my Paypal for the same reason, I used to buy tons of junk from ebay.

      Phillip.

    16. Re:Still not enough by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

      > Fuck Amazon.

      Fuck you for defending an alleged rapist.

    17. Re:Still not enough by slashqwerty · · Score: 1

      The US government has the rights by law to restrict dissemination of government information based on its classification of the sensitivity of that information.

      That only restricts what government employees can do with the information. Once it is released to the public it is in the public domain. There is a reason the New York Times can republish the leaked cables without the editor, reporter, and everyone else involved being thrown in jail.

    18. Re:Still not enough by bstender · · Score: 1

      yes, no doubt at all Amazon considered whether cooperating with the shadow govt. in summary censorship would harm their reputation amongst their client base and quickly concluded; Hahahahahahahahahah Americans? Hahahahahahaha. pull it.

      they are dead to me.

      --
      look sig is kool
    19. Re:Still not enough by bstender · · Score: 1

      >Fuck you for defending an alleged rapist.

      Fuck you for conflating Wikileaks with Assange, and for parroting blatent slander and for being a TOOL.

      --
      look sig is kool
    20. Re:Still not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to buy an awful lot from Amazon ...-snip-... For books I now buy here: http://www.abebooks.co.uk/

      Phillip.

      Wow, I hate to be the AC to break it to you, but Amazon owns AbeBooks.

      Fail?

    21. Re:Still not enough by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      I used to buy an awful lot from Amazon, in fact it was the principal place I did all my shopping, but also stopped since their treatment of Wikileaks. For books I now buy here: http://www.abebooks.co.uk/. For electronics this is good: http://www.mymemory.co.uk/.

      I also now find myself with more cash after I closed my Paypal for the same reason, I used to buy tons of junk from ebay.

      Phillip.

      ..... AbeBooks is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon. You're like those people that "boycotted" BP by going to the Arco station across the street.

  5. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Desler · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yeah, how dare they don't just bow down to all these lame cash grabs by various state governments! They should know it's their duty to make up for all the shortfalls of politicians who can't learn to cut their own spending habits! Maybe we should send their execs to gitmo to make them learn how a truly patriotic company should work!

  6. Wish we could mod articles by gman003 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd mod this one "+5 Funny".

    1. Re:Wish we could mod articles by dadioflex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the crux of the article is that Amazon are getting disreputable less quickly than most other large companies. The headline should read, "Amazon Losing Race To Be Least Ethical".

  7. Amazon: A Job Well Done by ThorntonAZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Amazon really is a great company to buy from. I have been purchasing from them more than any other etaler now it seems. I have even replaced some items that we would buy at Target or Costco and purchase them from now. I have had to deal with customer service a few times and it has been a pleasurable experience. I also stand with amazon as far as sales taxes go. I also run a small business online and I cant collect taxes from hundreds of counties across the US. I could be for a flat national sales tax maybe though.

    1. Re:Amazon: A Job Well Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not as much of a fan as you seem to be, but I can touch on the Sales tax issue they are dealing with that most normal people don't understand. If you have a physical store you sell out of, you have one set of sales tax to deal with and that's all. It never changes. Well, it does (when it goes up) but it doesn't change very often. When I had to look at setup up sales taxes for a business last year that had offices in multiple locations it quickly become a nightmare to deal with because you have different rates based upon the state, and sometimes even the county, and even the city. What all these different places want is for Amazon to collect their individual rates and submit them to each of them. If we had some sort of flat tax on a federal level perhaps it wouldn't be so bad. But it would have to replace all the local sales taxes and would have to have some very simple means to allocate amounts (per capita for example, not per sale). The volume of these transactions and the differences on what is and is not taxed is insane. Some places tax everything, some have exceptions for certain categories. After that project, I started to understand just why Amazon is fighting it. And it has very little to do with the price advantage they get now.

      Things aren't fair now (Amazon gets a advantage vs local retailers) but they wouldn't be fair the other way, either (local retailers have one simple tax to deal with per purchase and Amazon has a million). There should be a compromise somewhere that's far to everyone.

    2. Re:Amazon: A Job Well Done by MITguy21 · · Score: 1

      ...When I had to look at setup up sales taxes for a business last year that had offices in multiple locations it quickly become a nightmare to deal with because you have different rates based upon the state, and sometimes even the county, and even the city. What all these different places want is for Amazon to collect their individual rates and submit them to each of them. ...

      I've heard this argument before, but I don't buy it. As soon as there is a general requirement for big companies to pay sales tax to all the jurisdictions where they sell things (in USA), some company will see the opportunity to create, maintain and sell/license a database that tracks all these different taxes. With a few big customers, the cost per transaction to pay the sales tax will soon be very small.

    3. Re:Amazon: A Job Well Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to collect taxes from hundreds of counties across the US.

      There, fixed that for you.

    4. Re:Amazon: A Job Well Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon is a really great company. Just ask WikiLeaks. Or anyone else who wakes up one morning and finds that Amazon has been piping data directly to the Feds a la AT&T's "secret room".

      Or for that matter, anyone who's been "1984"ed on an eBook.

      I used to be one of Amazon's greatest fans and a steady customer. In the last 6 months, I've not bought anything from them.

    5. Re:Amazon: A Job Well Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. My only complaint with Amazon is that they don't let me choose the shipping carrier. We had an issue with UPS a while back and I would have paid Amazon double shipping charges if I could have specified FedEx or even USPS. Otherwise, no complaint at all.

    6. Re:Amazon: A Job Well Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Astroturf, plain and simple.

  8. What is your definition of reputable? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just ran across a book the other day that cost more on amazon.ca than on amazon.com. Not sure how that works. There is no duty. The difference in shipping costs of the printed book should be moot especially where I am, within fifty miles of Niagara Falls. And to top it off, the Canadian dollar has been worth more than the U.S. dollar for the past few months. Amazon had no good reason to charge almost ten dollars more to Canadians for the same book. Not very reputable if you ask me. But since they bought bookpool.com a few years ago, they're the only real game in town.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:What is your definition of reputable? by degeneratemonkey · · Score: 1

      Amazon's primary business concentration (and by extension, their largest paying customer base) is in distributed computing services, not Internet retail. In the former arena, they are exceptionally successful and popular. In the latter arena, it's my understanding (please don't shoot me if I'm wrong) that they are really only a middle-man for other distributors and as such do not control the base price or handling costs of merchandise sold.

    2. Re:What is your definition of reputable? by gilbert644 · · Score: 0

      You ran across a book that was to expensive and that means they suck? A store that sells millions of different products and acts as a middle man most of the time? What ridiculous expectations.

    3. Re:What is your definition of reputable? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that some of this is just the regular screwing that Canadians get for being a small market that nonetheless has its own copyrights and legal minefields to wander through. However, are there any other possible reasons? I had always wondered why European (e.g., with British being among the worst) prices on so many consumer goods were so much higher than what we pay in the US, until I learned about their consumer protection acts, which (in the UK, as I've been told) lets you get a replacement or refund on something that breaks within two years (or maybe three? long time, anyway) from the seller. In the US, nearly anything past 30 days will be a manufacturer's refund/warranty, rather than retailer's. Does Canada have similar laws? Because three-year point-of-sale-replacement warranties definitely aren't cheap.

    4. Re:What is your definition of reputable? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Well, if I was to make a simple 2D chart of stores I think my two axis would be price and reputation. Too low prices tend to go with cutting corners, unserious business practices, stock and shipping date cheating, problems with returns and so on. Then there are companies that I consider reputable, as in everything will be in order but their prices are far too high.

      I'm not sure I'd rank amazon as #1 but they work well enough and their prices are typically good. That said I typically order DVDs and video games from them, kinda hard to screw that up. They very often have games a lot cheaper than Steam, their weekend sales may be cheap but their overall prices are often high.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:What is your definition of reputable? by Mad+Leper · · Score: 0

      I shop in Canada from both amazon.ca and amazon.com. Sometimes an item is cheeper on one site or the other, so guess what? I just buy from the cheaper one.

      Can't really see with this would be labeled as "disreputable" behaviour on Amazon's part

    6. Re:What is your definition of reputable? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Similar return policies on both sides of the border. What is interesting is if you purchase something from say Best Buy in America, they won't warranty it in Canada and vice versa. Legally they are separate entities in the two countries, but I bet the money only goes to one place. :) This has bit me too.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    7. Re:What is your definition of reputable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a very lonely person.

    8. Re:What is your definition of reputable? by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Consider the source.

      Reputable in the context of this dumb article means "Firms that paid Reputation Institute" to put them on the Reputable list.

    9. Re:What is your definition of reputable? by Wannabe+Code+Monkey · · Score: 1

      I just ran across a book the other day that cost more on amazon.ca than on amazon.com. Not sure how that works. There is no duty. The difference in shipping costs of the printed book should be moot especially where I am, within fifty miles of Niagara Falls. And to top it off, the Canadian dollar has been worth more than the U.S. dollar for the past few months. Amazon had no good reason to charge almost ten dollars more to Canadians for the same book. Not very reputable if you ask me. But since they bought bookpool.com a few years ago, they're the only real game in town.

      I think your issue might be more with book prices in general than with Amazon specifically. It's long been a North American book publisher tradition to print USD and CAD prices on books with seemingly little regard to the current exchange rate. According to Exchange Rates Revisited: U.S. Dollar and the Cost of Books, in 2009 the CAD prices printed on newly published books were as much as 27% higher than the USD prices. This was at a time when the US and Canadian dollars were at parity. I would guess the price that Amazon pays to the publishers for the books is similarly skewed.

      Although, I suppose Amazon could just order a whole bunch of books in USD, and then sell those to Canadians. But, then I'd also suppose there's some draconian clause the the agreement between the publishers and Amazon not to do that. Maybe Canadians are just used to seeing a higher numerical price for their books so the publishers figure they can still get away with it. Or maybe Amazon does pay the same price to the publisher whether a book ends up going to a Canadian or an American, it's just Amazon and not the publisher figuring they can keep screwing Canadians.

      --
      We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
    10. Re:What is your definition of reputable? by nedlohs · · Score: 0

      Oh no, a company charges a price they think will get them the most profit. Curse them!

    11. Re:What is your definition of reputable? by metlin · · Score: 1

      I believe you are mistaking charging the market price with reputable -- just because they are a reputable company does not mean that they should discount all profits from a free market enterprise.

    12. Re:What is your definition of reputable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are exceptionally wrong, almost all of Amazon's revenue is retail.

    13. Re:What is your definition of reputable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a very nigger person.

    14. Re:What is your definition of reputable? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I know there used to be a term for charging one distinct group of people more for your goods than another group of people because you could get away with it; even though the costs involved to the seller were the same.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    15. Re:What is your definition of reputable? by The+Gaytriot · · Score: 1

      Amazon actually does a substantial amount of retailing on their own in addition to acting as the middle man for 3rd party distributors. They own huge distribution centers for their own merchandise, I can't comment on what percentage of stuff on their site is sold by them vs. by 3rd parties though.

      --
      Srsly u guys. U guys, srsly.
  9. Oh? And Who the F is the Reputation Institute? by blair1q · · Score: 2

    Howcome they didn't rate in the top half on their own poll?

    1. Re:Oh? And Who the F is the Reputation Institute? by leachlife4 · · Score: 1

      "largest 150 companies based on revenue in the US"

    2. Re:Oh? And Who the F is the Reputation Institute? by e9th · · Score: 1

      Howcome they didn't rate in the top half on their own poll?

      They lost points because the Managing Director RI Research is named Ponzi.

  10. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Scowler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost. Besides, if they actively negotiate with these states they may find a solution acceptable to those states, that actually does not sting as bad as expected. And, anyways, many other e-tailers collect those taxes and still manage to prosper.

  11. Rationality by degeneratemonkey · · Score: 2

    While it is disheartening that Amazon shafted WikiLeaks, they are free to do as they wish with their private enterprise; most likely the decision was made by those with a financial stake in the company, not by those with a strong sense of idealism regarding freedom of speech. There very likely would have been no issue in the eyes of Amazon's stakeholders if their government weren't so heavy-handed and secretive.

    So, I say don't shoot the messenger. Amazon does incredible things and has contributed a great deal to the evolution and adoption of improved technology in business through their various services and open source efforts. It is a narrow mind that cannot take the good with the bad in a world run by balding apes.

    1. Re:Rationality by Desler · · Score: 1

      While it is disheartening that Amazon shafted WikiLeaks

      Shafted? Wikileaks broke their rules and thus according to the agreement they had with Amazon they lose access to Amazon's service. Maybe they shouldn't have agreed to terms that they couldn't follow?

      In b4 some Wikileaks troll mods me down again.

    2. Re:Rationality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikileaks broke no rules or law. Yo tarded?

    3. Re:Rationality by horza · · Score: 1

      And all of us on here are free to never buy anything from Amazon again. It's a narrow mind that can't see there are now better alternatives to buy from than a company that censors publications which do not break any laws.

      Phillip.

  12. love amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i love amazon. I've been using them for many many years. They have never done a single thing to make me think otherwise. I use so many of their services, Kindle, prime, Amazon mom, etc. Everything is a smooth, easy and cost saving transaction. If Amazon ran a meat market, I'm pretty sure I'd buy meat at Amazon.

    1. Re:love amazon by slashqwerty · · Score: 1

      If Amazon ran a meat market, I'm pretty sure I'd buy meat at Amazon.

      Have you considered Tuscan Whole Milk, 1 Gallon, 128 fl oz? It gets rave reviews! It's a kind of human milkiness, a great party beverage, and it has been known to save lives. Nearly everyone agrees, Tuscan Whole Milk, 1 Gallon, 128 fl oz is well worth the fifty bucks.

      While you're at it, consider tossing a Three Wolf Moon shirt in your shopping cart.

    2. Re:love amazon by slashqwerty · · Score: 2

      I use so many of their services, Kindle

      And at no extra charge it comes with the complementary erasing of controversial material!

    3. Re:love amazon by retchdog · · Score: 1

      their food is expensive, even by NYC standards, and often not very fresh; i think that the logistics for books and electronics just don't translate well. i wouldn't buy, say, vegetable oil at amazon, much less meat or vegetables.

      as far as non-food items, i mostly agree.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  13. It's been earned... by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Informative

    First, it's pretty hard for people to get an unfavorable opinion of Amazon from anything that doesn't happen directly to them (as opposed to, say, BP getting unfavorables based on Deepwater Horizon from people who live nowhere near the Gulf of Mexico). Second, their customer service is pretty good. My wife's Kindle, which I bought about two years ago, had an untimely meeting with a Diet Coke back in October. I had bought the extended warranty, which came with a one-time we-don't-care-why-it-died replacement clause, mainly because her electronics have a surprisingly high rate of mysterious death. Despite the fact that the warranty is technically sold by another company, not Amazon, I got ZERO runaround - instead I was seamlessly transferred from Kindle support to the warranty processing people, who pulled up all the necessary information. The replacement stopped erasing its screen properly this week, so I called Amazon again yesterday - and again, got a no-hassle experience (the only stupid hoop to jump through was that they wanted me to reboot it once). The replacement's replacement will be here tomorrow. And they've paid the shipping both ways, every time, even including a prepaid shipping label so that all I have to do is drop it off at a post office.

    Customer service, in short, works.

    1. Re:It's been earned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as it is something they sell directly. With all the other sellers that they serve as a middleman, it is quite a variety of return policies which have to be examined carefully without assuming anything like Amazon's "generosity". I have about given up considering electronics that they "pass along" for other sellers since most (that I have looked at) are far more restrictive. I prefer to deal with local stores (mostly of national chains like Target, Office Depot, Kohl's, etc) where I have found the policies to be more consumer friendly.

    2. Re:It's been earned... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Well, duh. There's a reason that Amazon itself sells objects for more than the cheapo competition. When you're buying a book just to read it, that's not really important. When you're buying a TV, it is. I've paid more plenty of occasions to make the deal with a company I trust, like Amazon or Newegg. Saving $5 here or there isn't worth it, the way that saving $500 is.

    3. Re:It's been earned... by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 2

      I too have had nothing but good customer service from Amazon. Twice I have had to return items that broke during shipment. Both were handled quickly and courteously. Yes, they do have actual people who will TALK to you about your problem. In one case, the replacement item got to my house just two days after I notified them of the problem, the same day I sent the broken one back!

      Low prices, (usually) no shipping costs, no sales tax, great customer service...Amazon has earned MY business!

    4. Re:It's been earned... by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 1

      I actually sent in a complaint email about this very practise. If I go to Amazon it's because I want to buy from Amazon (who, otherwise, I've had nothing but good experiences with) not some random e-tailer who Amazon for some reason wants to redirect me to.

      When I got my MacBook three years ago Amazon was the first place I looked. Saw the crappy seller I'd never heard of selling something I couldn't afford to fuck around with, thought "fuck this" and bought it from John Lewis instead. I trust JL a lot more than I do some fly-by-night, even if they are recommended by Amazon.

  14. So very reliable by Tolkien · · Score: 1

    The ratings are analyzed from nearly 33,000 online consumer responses taken in January and February.

    2 months. 33,000 reports. Seriously? This "award" is worthless.

    1. Re:So very reliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also start by picking the top 150 companies by revenue. You could be shipping customers flaming garbage in a box and as long as your volume was great enough, apparently rank no lower than the 150th most reputable company in the U.S.

      (Not that I'm not casting aspersions on whoever got 150th; I haven't even read the list.)

    2. Re:So very reliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather, I'm not casting aspersions. One negative, not two. But neutral on whatever company got 150th, not negative on them. I'm positive they gave it their best.

    3. Re:So very reliable by Tolkien · · Score: 1

      Singularly or doubly positive?

    4. Re:So very reliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems fine to me. At least from personal experience, Amazon has been great. I've had very few problems ordering things through them and the few that I have had Amazon corrected immediately and without question after I filed a dispute against the seller.

    5. Re:So very reliable by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Yeah-yeah.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  15. There is honor among thieves by clem.dickey · · Score: 1

    Amazon does a very good job of looking after their customers' interests. Even when those interests include letting other people pay for police, fire suppression and education.

    1. Re:There is honor among thieves by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 2

      Amazon pays for police and fire protection for their warehouses via the property taxes. And it's not their responsibility to pay for the locals' education, it's the parents' responsibility.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    2. Re:There is honor among thieves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought police was a city responsibility, not a state one, in the US?

    3. Re:There is honor among thieves by Damarkus13 · · Score: 1
      Cities get a portion of sales tax. State, county and city each add a percentage. If I purchase an item in a neighboring city I pay about 9.5%. If I have the same item delivered to my door, I only pay about 9%. That's how works in Washington state at least. Each state is, at least, slightly different.

      That's why it's such a PITA to collect sales tax. It's a big enough headache to keep track of one states tax laws, and tax boundaries (which rarely correspond with ZIP codes).

    4. Re:There is honor among thieves by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      Despite your (somewhat painful) libertarian trolling, you kinda missed the point. clem.dickey was talking about Amazon assisting their customers in avoiding the payment of taxes through locally-operating vendors who presumably would be subject to the sales tax.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  16. Re:They obviously didn't poll Wikileaks either... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A quick reminder-- Amazon quickly and voluntarily pulled the plug on Wikileaks after a talking basset hound pressured them to do so.

    I have my own little boycott against Amazon going and I invite you to join it. There are plenty of great places to buy things online. Give them a shot.

  17. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's not really any negotiation to be done with the states. The states believe that Amazon should collect and forward sales taxes for them, despite receiving no services from those states. Amazon thinks that lacking a physical presence in a state exempts them from that. There's not really a compromise position where they collect half the tax, or something. And as long as Amazon keeps its presence out of those states, they'll keep winning - there's no way to enforce a judgement against them, even in a court ruled that the state had standing to sue them.

  18. and they treat their employees like shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked for amazon for a brief time last year in a call center. I loved it at first. I've been a loyal customer for years and was excited to get a job there. I was even put on the fast track to be a supervisor while still in training.

    A month later someone (else) posted a rumor about company policy on twitter and facebook. As a individual (ie not disclosing I was an employee) I stated it sounded fishy, especially since it was a 180 reversal and there was no mention of it on the amazon home page nor given to us as employees as a heads up.

    The next day I was suspended and told I was under investigation. The next week I was fired for breach of the confidentiallity agreement. I got a copy of it and there is no way in hell what I said was in violition. I even took it to a lawyer and had him review it.

    Long story short, someone higher up leaked info, but I got to be the scapegoat. Screw them.

    1. Re:and they treat their employees like shit. by retchdog · · Score: 0

      "I've been a loyal customer for years and was excited to get a job there [at a call center]"

      Wow. You're either droolingly stupid or amazingly naive (or this is a really weird troll). I hope it's just naivety, and that you learned something very important. hint: it's not just amazon; by this standard, all human collectivities (not just private companies) are guilty.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    2. Re:and they treat their employees like shit. by CTU · · Score: 1

      lesson of this story...never let your employer know about ether your facebook or twitter accounts :P

  19. A bit ironic, I suppose by atari2600a · · Score: 2

    The most reputable company is among the most tax-evading

    1. Re:A bit ironic, I suppose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck the constitution, I want to stick it to the companies. They're not evading taxes; they're following constitutional law. If you don't like it, get the constitution changed.

    2. Re:A bit ironic, I suppose by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      If they pay any taxes at all, then they're ahead of most.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    3. Re:A bit ironic, I suppose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? You're seriously saying that knowing full well all the other top fortune X companies use tax loopholes and offshore deviance to their favor? Get off the high horse.

  20. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    You make it sound like sales tax is some noble charity that they should be ashamed of themselves for jumping at the chance to pay. How about instead we end Sales tax for For both Online and Local Businesses?

  21. Selling us a load of BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd believe that argument had some weight if they weren't pulling out of Texas because of a sales tax issue, if they weren't moving into other states because of promises to not make them collect sales taxes.

    And I guarantee, it's just a matter of time before things DO happen, on a federal level, with some agreement or exchange system to make it happen.

    Besides, you forget, it's the people who are supposed to pay those sales taxes, because of all the things their governments do for them. People who presumably, wouldn't be customers of Amazon without some of those services.

    Go figure.

    1. Re:Selling us a load of BS by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      No, I don't forget - I'm aware that people are supposed to pay use taxes; they just don't, because they're vanishingly unlikely to be caught. Of course, those people also pay income tax, property tax, car registration, etc., to their state and local governments. And some of those state and local governments offer very, very limited services - remember the shitstorm here when the city fire department in a small town in rural Tennessee let a house burn down because its owner lived outside the city limits and had failed to purchase their fire protection plan despite multiple reminders? - and so it's kind of hard to understand what responsibility Amazon has to places that it doesn't get jack from. After all, while collecting and forwarding sales taxes isn't impossibly difficult, it's also not free.

    2. Re:Selling us a load of BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the fire department isn't funded by sales taxes in Tennessee. Go figure. Sorry, but bad justification there. All you're really saying is that people who don't get paid for something don't get the service. Big surprise! The city in question had its fire services paid for by property taxes, not sales. Nobody is asking Amazon to pay for them.

      But hey, you know the thing about collecting sales taxes? Most places let you pro-rate how much it'll cost you to collect and pay the sales taxes, and if Amazon wants to negotiate for that, more power to them.

      But they're not. They want to avoid it at all, because it gives them an advantage over their competitors.

    3. Re:Selling us a load of BS by Aquitaine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember when the incident you're talking about with Texas came up. Wasn't it the case that Texas basically invited them to come to TX in the first place with the promise of no sales tax, and then turned around a couple of years later and reversed course?

      Even if not, the problem is the fundamental structure of Sales tax - not Amazon's unwillingness to pay it. No company that does business online wants to collect sales tax, and I'll tell you why, as a small business, I am interested in Amazon's case: because if Amazon has to collect tax for not just all 50 states but every county in every state where sales tax is variable (and sometimes even on the local level), you've just driven up the cost of business to the point where it is no longer feasible to start an online business in your garage/bedroom/basement because you need very sophisticated software to handle the collection side and an accounting team to handle the payment side: small business owners like me already have to learn a lot about accounting (which is fine, and even perversely fun sometimes) but if we had to file returns with every state with which we did business? omgwtfbbq.

      If you left it up to me, I'd replace sales tax entirely with a Federal sales tax that had a state reimbursement system. I don't mind collecting tax and passing it on to the government for you. I mind having to spend twice my annual gross income calculating and then delivering that tax to every state in the union.

    4. Re:Selling us a load of BS by linuxwolf69 · · Score: 1
      I agree with the Federal tax. It's even possible to do away with all income tax by paying a federal sales tax. This would also solve the problem of "rich people getting out of paying taxes" and "tax evasion" ... not to mention "illegal aliens come and work for cash, take advantage of our welfare system, and don't pay income tax".
      Texas does not have state income tax. We pay a higher sales tax than most I've seen (8.25 percent on non food items, excluding "impulse buys" like candies and sodas) but don't have the income tax. If every state did this and/or the federal government did this, it could increase the money the government receives.

      Everybody spends money. The more money you make, the more money you spend. Erego, the rich pay more in taxes instead of less while the poor pay less in taxes instead of more.

    5. Re:Selling us a load of BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember when the incident you're talking about with Texas came up. Wasn't it the case that Texas basically invited them to come to TX in the first place with the promise of no sales tax, and then turned around a couple of years later and reversed course?

      Not from what I can tell. It opened in 2006, the state began investigating whether or not Amazon should pay taxes based on that, decided they should, and sent a bill from the opening.

      Even if not, the problem is the fundamental structure of Sales tax - not Amazon's unwillingness to pay it.

      While I concur with you that the problem of diverse taxes is an issue, it's a resolvable one...except for Amazon not wanting to pay taxes at ALL.

      They have zip codes. They have addresses. They know where their packages are going. They can work something out. If they want to try.

      They don't.

      At all.

      The issue of figuring out what rate to pay is a red herring, the fundamental issue is AMAZON does NOT want to pay. At all.

      And screw the idiots who think that a universal federal sales tax could replace the income tax. It'd be WORSE for the average person, not better.

    6. Re:Selling us a load of BS by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      California and New York (the two places I've lived) both have sales tax of at least 8.25% in urban and suburban areas. It's been at least 8.5% in the particular cities I've lived in.

      Also, both states have some of the highest state income and other taxes around. And both states have budget issues, quite severe ones actually.

      Now, I do like the idea of no income tax but a higher sales tax, but I'm not sure it would work out to be feasible. And many of the rich would end up with an effective tax cut - if you're a miser and don't spend any money, then you wouldn't pay any tax. You'd need the sales tax percentage to vary by each person's income, which is entirely infeasible.

    7. Re:Selling us a load of BS by jbengt · · Score: 1

      . . . if Amazon has to collect tax for not just all 50 states but every county in every state where sales tax is variable (and sometimes even on the local level), you've just driven up the cost of business to the point where it is no longer feasible to start an online business in your garage/bedroom/basement because you need very sophisticated software to handle the collection side and an accounting team to handle the payment side . . .

      I think you hit the nail on the head here.
      For example, in Chicago there are state sales taxes, county sales taxes, city sales taxes, and even special "business district" sales taxes in part of the city (the area around the convention center, downtown, etc. - designed to hit the tourist and business traveller) Certain items, like food or medicine, are expempt from some of the taxes, but not from others; and just what counts as food or medicine can vary, also. Then other items, like soft drinks, may have additional taxes imposed. This is hard to figure out if you have only one or two stores in the area. If you are an out-of-state entity with customers from anywhere, it would be a nightmare.

    8. Re:Selling us a load of BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, both states have some of the highest state income and other taxes around. And both states have budget issues, quite severe ones actually.

      So does Texas dude.

      I think Texas actually has a bigger issue than California, but I'm not certain.

    9. Re:Selling us a load of BS by Aquitaine · · Score: 1

      Texas definitely has a problem, but arguably it's not quite as much of a fundamental structural issue as CA and NY. I was in NY from 1998-2010 and they definitely have one of the most top-heavy, ungainly governments around.

      Texas passes a budget every two years, so I assume that their $27 billion shortfall is therefore over a two-year period, whereas California's $26 billion deficit is one year. Even were that not the case, the real problem in California's case (and NY's) is unfunded pension liabilities. Texas is a Right to Work state and isn't on the hook to the same extent for public pensions. That's the big elephant in the room for a lot of states (Illinois is up there with CA and NY) -- they've got serious problems now, but they're going to get a heck of a lot worse.

      In other words, I'd much rather have to fix Texas' problems than California's or New York's.

  22. Scams by Shippu · · Score: 2

    I've seen all sorts of scams running on Amazon and they don't give a fuck. A few examples that I've seen so far:
    Counterfeit items.
    Products advertised as £0.01 with the actual cost in a fake shipping charge.
    There are hundreds of thousands of "books" which are actually auto generated pamphlets consisting of a main Wikipedia article and some linked articles, selling for £30+ and almost all rated 1 star by anyone who bought one. (Search for Betascript on amazon)
    Crap watches selling for £10, supposedly reduced from £50 or whatever. I know someone who bought one of these thinking she was getting a bargain but the watch was barely worth £5 let alone £50.
    I'd also include Amazon themselves automatically charging £50 for prime after the free trial. It was stated in the terms but they must have made millions from people who didn't notice.

    1. Re:Scams by parens · · Score: 1
      I don't know that "people who didn't notice" counts as Amazon "not giving a fuck".

      Sounds a lot more like the people who failed to notice the terms of the service they signed up for, didn't give a fuck.

    2. Re:Scams by maxume · · Score: 1

      In the U.S., sellers get fixed shipping rates, so when they charge $0.01 for something, they get the same cut from the shipping as when they charge $10. I wouldn't call that a scam.

      The fake books thing is a bit of a thing, but other than copyright violations, what line are they supposed to draw?

      And anybody who takes a retailers word for what something is worth and then pays the retailer less than that for the item should learn a lesson from it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Scams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Products advertised as £0.01 with the actual cost in a fake shipping charge.

      You do know that you can dispute outrageous shipping charges and Amazon will refund you for it, right? I've done that a number of times and they never questioned it.

    4. Re:Scams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on the prices in your message, I'm guessing you aren't in the US. Amazon is the most reputable company in the US, not in the UK. :)

    5. Re:Scams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd also include Amazon themselves automatically charging £50 for prime after the free trial. It was stated in the terms but they must have made millions from people who didn't notice.

      So it's a scam when they tell you up front that they're going to charge you for the year if you don't cancel before your trial ends? This is standard practice for ANY sort of free trial you find today.
       
      You sir, are an idiot.

    6. Re:Scams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only people would read their TOS before signing up for their free trial. I knew quite well I would be charged once the trial was over. That's pretty much SOP for any trial subscription service.

      As for the other items, ever heard of product research? I'll happily pay a pence with my free Prime shipping. I would also look up the ISBN number for any book I was buying to see if I could get a better deal somewhere else and would quickly notice it wasn't a real publication. And, you note they have one star reviews complaining of the problem. So why buy? Same with your crappy watches. Look for independent reviews before buying.

      It's not Amazon's job to give a damn what you want to buy.

    7. Re:Scams by Shippu · · Score: 1

      They should have standards for what they sell or allow to be sold through them though. At least I would hope the most reputable company in the US did.
      Selling those books depends on naive people not realising what they are buying. There are about 300000 of them so far and not that many have reviews. Cons usually depend on someone's greed or naivete but that doesn't mean they deserve to get conned or that scammers should be allowed to get away with it.

      I never got burned by any of this, but others did. The stuff that costs 1p is never eligible for prime or free shipping, although often there are alternative sellers who can provide free or cheaper shipping.

      To be fair, Amazon's customer service has been excellent any time I've needed it.

  23. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we should send their execs to gitmo to make them learn how a truly patriotic company should work!

    Yeah! Like GE, IBM, Google, and others who moved much of their operations overseas so that they don't have to pay any taxes!

    Fuck'n A Man! you're so right on!

  24. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Firehed · · Score: 1

    And it's none of the state's business to collect taxes on something I bought from another state, which is Amazon's completely valid argument. One could argue that they should be collecting taxes on the state from which the item is shipping since there's the obvious physical presence (this would more closely mimic what happens when I buy an item at retail), but I think sales tax is bullshit to begin with since the state is providing no value to either the buyer or the seller, other than merely existing.

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  25. Random private think thank with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a fake reliable name rates other private organizations. i wonder where we have seen this before - ah - the private financial rating agencies which rated fraud hedge funds as AAA+ assets.

    yes that works.

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-17-2010/in-dodd-we-trust

  26. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of Amazon's advantages is that they don't require sales taxes, which can often result in the product costing less even with shipping charges. Once they are required to collect sales taxes they'll lose that price advantage and will likely lose sales because of it. It is not in their corporate interest to 'help' in the process.

    I've about had it with companies this big looking to get out of paying taxes. We've got a congress that wants to cut a supplemental nutrition program for infants and pregnant women in poverty so Amazon can skip out on taxes, pay lobbyists and provide unfair competition to mom and pop bookstores.

    I say fuck 'em. I've got no problem paying taxes and I've got no problem paying the stiff sales tax we've got here in Chicago. They like to use the nice internet the government made for them but they don't want to give anything back. Meanwhile, Borders is closing stores and the little bookstores where I shop can't even make ends meet.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  27. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And it's none of the state's business to collect taxes on something I bought from another state, which is Amazon's completely valid argument. One could argue that they should be collecting taxes on the state from which the item is shipping since there's the obvious physical presence (this would more closely mimic what happens when I buy an item at retail), but I think sales tax is bullshit to begin with since the state is providing no value to either the buyer or the seller, other than merely existing.

    Actually, Use Tax is applicable to products purchased out of state when no sales tax was collected (in states that have sales and/or use taxes).

  28. Terrible service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IFF the order isn't straightforward, the service becomes terrible.

    I suspect the "Contact us" form is answered by a learning algorithm because the reply I received didn't make sense.

  29. From the 150 largest companies? by maiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The "150 Most Reputable Companies" from a sample size of 150? Seems more like "the largest 150 companies sorted by reputation".

  30. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In this case, the tax avoiders are the citizens who order things off the internet without paying their proper use tax. Not Amazon - at most, their duty is to collect the tax, not to pay it.

    Incidentally, to the extent that the Internet is something "the government made for them", it's a product of the federal government - which does not collect sales tax.

  31. Conducting "Most Ethical & Respected" survey by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    I am pleased to announce that I have just formed the "Most Ethical & Respected Slashdot Reader Institute." Please send your contributions to my paypal account, so that I many conduct a purely scientific, and completely unbiased survey. I will post the results in a slashdot article I plan to submit later.

    Hey if Obama can win a Nobel peace prize, and Microsoft is rated as the 4th most ethical company, and Amazon is the most respected company in the world - how could my results be any worse?

  32. Flying high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Southwest airlines is up 0.64, putting them at 34th. I bet they're so happy they tear the roof off the plane... er, place.

  33. Financial Institutions and other "Reputable" Co. by selex · · Score: 1

    Was going to ask where Goldman Sach, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mac, Citigroup and Comcast were...but after looking at the list they are down there with ExxonMobil and News Corp? But I can trust News Corp, Glen Beck told me so!

    Selex

  34. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by MimeticLie · · Score: 1

    Except that this isn't tax evasion by a big company, it's tax evasion by individuals. Many states have a use tax that you have to pay for items purchased out of state, but people don't seem too keen on paying them.

    Corporate tax evasion is a serious issue, but Amazon not paying states it doesn't have locations in isn't an egregious violation. If you want to get angry about something, get angry about Exxon entirely dodging federal taxes by going offshore.

  35. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Kurofuneparry · · Score: 1

    Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost.

    Drivel. Companies have a fiduciary duty to make a profit. "reputable" means how you go about trying to make a profit, not whether or not you prioritize making a profit. Then again .... I'm an idiot ......

    --
    ...... and idiots rule the world....
  36. Fuck... by kyuubiunl · · Score: 1

    This story on general principle.

  37. Reputable because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon makes your wish lists public by default? Yeah, that's real sweet of them.

  38. European VAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Amazon collect VAT taxes in Europe on internet purchase?. If it does what is the rate?

    1. Re:European VAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it does. The rate is determined by the state where you ship the item. In other words, they already have a system in place, should they be required to do it in the US as well.

  39. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    This entire situation has been hashed over, and over and over, since mail order buying began well over 150 years ago.

    A state cannot require a retailer in another state to collect taxes for it. Period. Nothing has changed that would affect this.

    Every bit of this idea is nothing but the same sh*t, different day. There is nothing to be seen here. Move along.

  40. Not Newegg? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Newegg gets my vote. I don't know about the rest of you guys/gals, but my experience with Newegg rocks! That's not to say that won't turn 180 and turn into total douche bags, but that's a hypothetical tomorrow. Today however, they have my love :)

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Not Newegg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used both Amazon and Newegg and service from both have been excellent.

      I've never had **any** issues with Newegg products, so I don't know how they react when things go badly. The over use of rebates is a hassle that I'd rather avoid.

      With Amazon, I've had a few things go badly that were not Amazon's fault. They addressed the issues quickly. A few times, they sent replacement shipments - these where not $10 items, but over $100 each. No cost to me. Amazon has treated me the same way that I'd like a store to treat my mother. That is about the best that any store can do and I'll keep shopping there.

      Sure, I'm unhappy about their treatment of wikileaks, but I don't know what sort of business pressures were being applied. If the US government were buying cloud computing services and dangling a $50M contract, I'd drop wikileaks too.

    2. Re:Not Newegg? by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      Newegg has good, quick service, but it's more complicated and costs you more to do returns or exchanges, such that many times it isn't worth it. Newegg charges you the shipping fees for returns and exchanges, Amazon doesn't.

      Newegg does ship quickly (depending on where you live) and the selection and prices are generally good, but all the people who give them rave reviews must not have ever tried to return anything!

  41. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    They do responsibly collect sales tax. They collect sales tax for the state that they reside in and states that they have a physical presence in, just as they are supposed to. They do not collect sales tax in states where they have no presence and where the government has no authority to make them collect sales tax. However, despite what some people have said, e-tailers do not have any kind of price advantage over local stores as the buyer is still legally responsible to pay Use Tax on the items purchased. It is not the e-tailers fault if you break the law.
    Heck I think it is wrong that states force retailers to collect sales tax for them. In my state, not only do they make me as a retailer do their job for them, but they charge me $50 a year for the privilege of doing their job for them.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  42. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by __u63 · · Score: 1

    The question at issue isn't what is in Amazon's corporate interest. It's whether Amazon merits the "most reputable company" designation that has been given it, in light of the fact that its business model basically involves evading state sales tax, which any company that sells out of a physical location is required to collect. That is a controversial business model, at a minimum.

    Pursuing shareholder value and behaving reputably are obviously different things.

  43. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

    A state cannot require a retailer in another state to collect taxes for it.

    Unless, of course, the retailer has a presence in that other state. Which Amazon does, have affiliates all over the place.

    That's besides the point, though. Quite aside from their tax strategy, given that Amazon is a bunch of patent-abusing censoring bastards, no sane and informed person can call them "reputable".

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  44. Johnson & Johnson? by OrigamiMarie · · Score: 1

    So ah . . . #3 has been in a product recall death spiral for more than a year, hasn't it?

  45. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it's none of the state's business to collect taxes on something I bought from another state, which is Amazon's completely valid argument. One could argue that they should be collecting taxes on the state from which the item is shipping since there's the obvious physical presence (this would more closely mimic what happens when I buy an item at retail), but I think sales tax is bullshit to begin with since the state is providing no value to either the buyer or the seller, other than merely existing.

    If your state isn't providing any value to you, then you may have a problem, yes, but instead of not paying taxes, you should probably consider getting what you want out of the government. You do have a right to petition them after all.

    Are they not providing enough law and order? Not stopping enough pollution? Perhaps not protecting your rights in some ways??

    Or are you one of those types that believes you can do it all yourself?

  46. how about the Worst Company in America polls? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

    You want polls? Here's a bunch: the Worst Company in America tournament. Amazon isn't in it.

    I've had decent service from Amazon. They could be the most beloved of all the large companies. Which maybe is saying they're the nicest turd in the latrine. That a Worst Company contest exists is merely emphasizing what we all know, which is that large corporations have far too much power. As the saying goes, power corrupts. We do have problems getting these 900 pound gorillas to behave responsibly, and not lobby for unfairly favorable treatment and sweet rent seeking or monopolistic arrangements, or just plain stupid laws, such as ACTA. They get their way on such matters far too often.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  47. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    "Unless, of course, the retailer has a presence in that other state."

    Well, true. But then they're not "in another state". They're in that state.

    Washington State has tried -- and maybe succeeded, I am not sure -- to collect taxes from Microsoft's corporate sales branch, which is incorporated in Nevada, on the basis that Microsoft's actual main offices are in Washington State. I am not really sure of the outcome of that, but the State might have a valid argument.

  48. they obviously didn't poll suppliers to Amazon by MITguy21 · · Score: 1

    As an author (for a small engineering publisher) Amazon is very much a mixed blessing. It's true that Amazon can sell some books, but they insist on huge discounts and nasty terms. There have been times when our publisher didn't accept the terms and then our books have been listed on Amazon as "out of print" -- a bold faced lie. Other times our books have been listed as long lead time (6 weeks, etc) items -- which means that Amazon is going to hold the customer order until they have enough to order a larger quantity of books from the small publisher. Both of these have the "black ball" effect of dissuading potential customers from looking further...since everyone knows that Amazon has everything, right? Another problem is that at various times, Amazon's price in USA has been 10% higher than the full retail price direct from the publisher.

  49. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    I live in a state where Amazon has a presence so I still have to pay sales tax (8.85%), and generally Amazon's prices are still lower than the brick-and-mortar stores. I always group my orders into $25+ bundles for free shipping, though.

  50. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by julesh · · Score: 1

    At some point, we have to figure out how e-tailers can and should responsibly collect sales taxes. Amazon could be helping that process, instead of fighting it tooth and nail.

    Not everyone agrees that Amazon has a responsibility to volunteer to pay taxes they don't legally have to:

    Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. -- Judge Learned Hand, 1934

  51. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost."

    Ah, so being "reputable" means how likely a company is to be sued by it's own stockholders then.

  52. online retailer wins an online survey... by strakerc · · Score: 1

    Why was this survey only issued online? Don't get me wrong, I love amazon and think it deserved to win but isnt this data flawed as the people polled are more likely to be online shoppers? THey should have had other distribution methods of the survey as well!

  53. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Property taxes are paid for by the property owner. Sales taxes are more so paid by the consumer, even if a business is to collect them. Hence why it makes sense to base sales tax on the shipping-to destination. Of course, why should a business bother to collect sales tax for a state it has no physical presence in? That's where use tax comes in.

    Too bad the feds can't step in to help simplify sales tax collection methods among the states.

    And just because people aren't paying their use tax, doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

  54. You're an accountant, aren't you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you really want every mom-and-pop e-tailer having to figure out the maze of tax codes?

    It's not as simple as "what's the sales tax for this zip code". There are auditing and reporting requirements (for some states), and some products get different tax rates than others -- then there are "tax free" days.

    Our tax system is a mess, and unless you want everyone who sells something online to hire a team of accountants, a better solution needs to be found.

  55. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

    So if Amazon pay tax to a State they have no phyical presense in, what do Amazon or it's customers get back .... nothing

    They are not using any services that have not already been paid for and taxed so what exactly are they paying taxes for?

    --
    Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  56. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    or maybe we need a taxation system that isn't insane to begin with.

  57. Impossible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft is the most ethical company. After having paid 3 billion dollars in fines and settlements, they learned their lesson, right? right?

  58. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    If your state isn't providing any value to you, then you may have a problem, yes, but instead of not paying taxes, you should probably consider getting what you want out of the government. You do have a right to petition them after all.

    where do you live? here in the states that would get you nowhere unless your wealth amounts to millions at a minimum.

    Are they not providing enough law and order? Not stopping enough pollution? Perhaps not protecting your rights in some ways??

    too much 'law', too much micromanagement of my life. protecting my rights is easy: just repeal the garbage laws which were bought and paid for by the wealthy.

    Or are you one of those types that believes you can do it all yourself?

    false dilemma. a nanny state does not help someone who cannot do it all himself. it takes his rights away while throwing him a few bones every now and then.. subsistence is not existence in a free nation.

  59. Amazon? reputable? by McTickles · · Score: 0

    Not since the stunt they pulled with wikileaks.

    1. Re:Amazon? reputable? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      The list is based on RI's US RepTrak Pulse Study, which measures trust, esteem, admiration, and good feelings consumers have towards the largest 150 companies based on revenue in the US.

      You think the average consumer even knows about Wikileaks in any detail (especially in regards to your complaint against Amazon), let alone cares?

    2. Re:Amazon? reputable? by McTickles · · Score: 0

      True thats why they are consumers, they don't know any better.

      Oh well they are subhuman anyway, can't save those who don't want to be saved, let them be a good consumer and eat shit for all I care...

  60. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    I've about had it with companies this big looking to get out of paying taxes. We've got a congress that wants to cut a supplemental nutrition program for infants and pregnant women in poverty so Amazon can skip out on taxes, pay lobbyists and provide unfair competition to mom and pop bookstores.

    or how about those women take responsibility for themselves and get abortions if they can't afford to have those kids? isn't that what they wanted the right to choose for? that way less tax needs to be paid because of irresponsible behavior.

    I say fuck 'em. I've got no problem paying taxes and I've got no problem paying the stiff sales tax we've got here in Chicago. They like to use the nice internet the government made for them but they don't want to give anything back. Meanwhile, Borders is closing stores and the little bookstores where I shop can't even make ends meet.

    I guess you aren't counted among those who DO have a problem paying it..literally. you know...like those poor helpless women you mentioned?

  61. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

    There is zero reason why Amazon should pay sales taxes. If Amazon is not getting taxed enough, raise property taxes or otherwise ding them for road maintenance or what have you.

    They like to use the nice internet the government made for them but they don't want to give anything back.

    The government only did the initial research and it was for completely selfish reasons; they didn't do it so that you could get free porn, they did it so they could coordinate military communications. The internet that we know was overwhelmingly built out by private concerns with our money (well, it was their money, but only because we gave it to them directly.)

    Meanwhile, Borders is closing stores and the little bookstores where I shop can't even make ends meet.

    Sure they can, if they put their stock online. Of course, they'll get the most exposure through Amazon, but nothing forces them to go that road. Amazon is not DDOSing small bookstores' websites, are they? That would be news.

    Sales tax has been used to pay for all kinds of things it should never be used to pay for, things which should be paid for with property tax or income tax depending on the thing. This only proves that.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  62. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Too bad the feds can't step in to help simplify sales tax collection methods among the states.

    The constitution says that duties shall not be placed on goods because they are headed to or through another state. That's a good thing. It's the way it should be. If they want to collect taxes on those purchases they can collect them from the purchaser. If they can't manage that then they will have to find another way to collect those monies, like getting them from property taxes or from income taxes. Graduated income taxes are the fairest way to effectively tax that kind of economic activity because it's not supposed to matter to the collecting state where the goods are coming from, apparently. So just tax the people who can afford to buy shit and let them either buy shit or lose money to no end.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  63. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    they didn't do it so that you could get free porn

    Amazon has free porn?

    The internet that we know was overwhelmingly built out by private concerns with our money (well, it was their money, but only because we gave it to them directly.)

    Ah, you almost had a little logical implosion there. I applaud you for leaving it in. It shows honesty.

    Perhaps "sales tax" is not the best way to get Amazon to pay their share of the bill for participating in our society, which has made them so very successful.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  64. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Internet is something "the government made for them", it's a product of the federal government

    I see this argument all the time, and it's bullshit. First, the internet would have came about with or without government. It happened because it was time, not because government "made it happen". The ARPANET merely demonstrated that something along the lines of what we have today was possible -- if anyone could actually imagine today's internet back then (hint: no they couldn't). In no way was the ARPANET capable of anything near what we have today, and in no way does it have any bearing on what we know as the internet today. But more importantly, OUR internet was formed through the coincidental work of millions of different individuals and thousands of different companies, all working in their own interest and will but with a common vision -- NOT through the coercive power of a central authority . It is a network of networks of networks, and none of those networks is owned or operated by government, nor were they created by government, nor was the software that runs the internet created by government. So you tell me, exactly what bearing does the ARPANET have on today's internet except for providing a historical lesson?

    As for avoiding taxes, remember that we are talking about the most expensive, most powerful government in world history. By any account, the US government already has enough money. They have too much. Way too much. The more revenue government rakes in, the more injustice they are capable of. So I say we CHEER the tax avoiders, because they are helping to slow the continuous expansion of government, both in terms of revenue and power over the people (it takes revenue to implement power). At this point, ANY money that stays out of the hands of the corrupt elite who run the business of government is a good thing.

    1. Re:Bullshit by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I see this argument all the time, and it's bullshit. First, the internet would have came about with or without government.

      No. We have seen the "internet" as made by private industry and it's cable television. Remember how it was supposed to be all "interactive" and "democratic" and there would be so much "public access"?

      If the "internet" would have come about any way but by the Federal government and other publicly supported institutions (like universities) we wouldn't need keyboards.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  65. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Except that this isn't tax evasion by a big company

    You're right. I withdraw my wrong-headed argument that Amazon should pay sales tax.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  66. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lucky you ...it's 20% here.

  67. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    So if Amazon pay tax to a State they have no phyical presense in, what do Amazon or it's customers get back .... nothing

    A virtual "store" is the transaction between customer and shopper. When that book or CD shows up on my doorstep, me, the book or CD, the guy in brown pants bringing the book or CD up the stairs, his truck, the street, streetlights and police to keep those streets safe are certainly a "physical presence".

    Do you believe that a lack of "physical presence" should exempt a corporation from all taxes? Or a lack of "physical presence" should exempt them from all laws?

    I admit that I was wrong-headed about Amazon and sales tax. But not because they lack a "physical presence".

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  68. Really? Apple isn't in the top 150? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not an Apple fanboy, but I find it hard to believe they aren't one of the most reputable companies in the United States.

    1. Re:Really? Apple isn't in the top 150? by Dakman · · Score: 1

      From TFA: "IBM, Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle were all very close: 44th, 46th, 47th, and 49th, respectively."

  69. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by mysidia · · Score: 0

    Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost. Besides, if they actively negotiate with these states they may find a solution acceptable to those states, that actually does not sting as bad as expected. And, anyways, many other e-tailers collect those taxes and still manage to prosper.

    Corporations have to place their survival/earnings for shareholders first and foremost; their management is legally required to do so. If the states were willing to negotiate, possibly they could come up with a fair tax rate such as 0.5% split between all states, that reflects e-tailers do not require use of their states' infrastructure to sell products, especially services (such as digital music, eBooks), and shipping is already taxed through fuel and vehicle taxes.

    None of the "other e-tailers" prospering are really comparable to Amazon.

    You have companies like Dell that "make" their own products... you have companies like Apple that have physical stores, and nobody can compete with them on price, because they have a unique product.

    Most other "e-tailers" are not that successful. The fact you can point to a few examples, does not mean there is any chance Amazon would even survive, doing what the states really want.

  70. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by mysidia · · Score: 0

    And as long as Amazon keeps its presence out of those states, they'll keep winning - there's no way to enforce a judgement against them, even in a court ruled that the state had standing to sue them.

    I suppose to enforce judgement, they could get a court order that Fedex, UPS, and the US Post Office redirect all parcels entering the state From Amazon to the courthouse.

    Then the state could seize the goods, and auction them off in attempt to cover Amazon's "debt"

  71. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've about had it with companies this big looking to get out of paying taxes.

    Companies do not pay Sales Tax in the US. That kind of tax is actually paid by the person buying the product, which is why you will often see items advertised as "$14.99 plus Tax". The Companies collect the sales tax on behalf of the State, at the time of the Sale, and then they get to keep a percentage and pass the rest along to the government. (This is why you don't ever see the taxes included in the price. The taxes passed on to the State also do not get counted at all towards the businesses Gross revenue, etc.)

    Not all business are required (or allowed) to collect the sales tax, in addition to sales between private people. When tax isn't required to be collected by the business (or a business is not involved) it is the responsibility of the PERSON who buys the product to report it to the State and pay taxes.
    So for example if you buy something at a Yard Sale, technically you're required to report and pay tax on that (there are limits, of course, it's not for everything).

    Those are important points to keep in mind. Some States are basically going to Amazon and saying "Hey, even though you don't get any benefit from us, and you don't have anything in our State, we want YOU to spend your time and effort collecting taxes from our citizens."

    Personally, it doesn't matter to me. We don't have a Sales Tax in my state (Montana), we get our money through property taxes. This puts more of the tax burden on the wealthy landowners like Donald Trump and Bill Gates, and all the celebrities who build $50million dollar Summer Homes next to rural towns where the average home value is under $100k, and less of a burden on the poor people who live paycheck to paycheck and live in a $30k trailer house.

  72. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Desler · · Score: 1

    There's a big difference between offshoring to evade taxes and not bowing down to every cash grab from politicians who don't want to have to curb their own spending habits so they basically drive companies out of their state by slapping tons of taxes on them. If you thinking paying more and more in taxes is such a great thing, why don't you voluntarily increase the amount you pay in taxes?

  73. Kindle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly they missed the Swindle lock-in.... Subsidise the hardware get users locked in i-Tunes style...

  74. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by mysidia · · Score: 0

    Actually, Use Tax is applicable to products purchased out of state when no sales tax was collected

    Yes. States put those statutes on the books. Does not mean they are constitutional, however.

    There is a problem if any state finds itself attempting to tax interstate commerce. The constitution doesn't say "States may tax interstate commerce, as long as the tax is laid against the person who lives in the state"

    If the tax is based on the number of dollars that were exchanged in interstate commerce than the state IS (illegally) attempting to tax the transaction.

    If they were just laying a tax based on the 'fair market value' of using or storing an item in the state, without regard to the transaction, that would be a different matter entirely, but waiving the use tax for people who pay sales tax is prima facie that the 'use tax' is actually a commerce tax, prohibited by the US constitution.

  75. It is sad:Oh? And who is the R.I.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They aren't one of the Top 150 in terms of money/income/revenue/profit. Of the top 150 I find it disappointing that a book company that actively engages in censorship and retroactive deletion of customers books gets top spot on the list for reputation. That amazon is the best of the lot is yet another indicator that our world is in a sad state indeed.

    This is of course after all the other indicators: people starving, war, unmanaged disease, cowboy neal, other (enter your poll option in the comments below.

  76. Reputable? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    Three companies that help keep Americans fat and a pharmaceutical. No wonder the world thinks so little of us.

     

  77. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by stewbacca · · Score: 2

    I've never ever ever never ever taken the lack of sales tax into account when buying stuff from Amazon or not. It's about the availability, the price, and the ease of shopping.

  78. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost.

    While I don't disagree with your sentiment, nothing in the article defines reputable as such. There are plenty of people who think a company who tries to earn more profit is therefore more reputable than a company who fritters profit away for altruistic reasons.

    For the record, I hate those type of people.

  79. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    States put those statutes on the books. Does not mean they are constitutional, however.

    STATES RIIIIGHTS!!!!! Deeeeeerp!

    (I'm from Texas, sorry. I couldn't help myself.)

  80. This is meaningless worthless bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon's public and business conduct ( detailed on Slashdot in the recent past )
      precludes it from having a leading position in such a survey.

    As such, the rest of the survey is suspect in the extreme.

  81. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And indeed, in a number of states, you owe a Use Tax on things you buy from Amazon. It is your responsibility to track this and pay it. The states want to _also_ add a sales tax, because double-taxing amazon would give local businesses an advantage.

  82. Lies by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Their Amazon Credit Card charged me a $30 late fee even though it wasn't late. It was sent out at the same time as another card and the other bill made it just fine. And the Indian call-center employee was rude about it when I called, insisting it was my fault. Screw them!

  83. Re:They obviously didn't poll Wikileaks either... by rlglende · · Score: 1

    I did.

    Valore + Amazon ( Valore's search is useless ) + google checkout is a fine substitute for buying books from Amazon.

    --
    "The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
  84. Kraft Foods second? by ameboy · · Score: 0

    This list is a joke. Kraft is one of the most disreputable companies. There are a lot of people, myself included, who would not touch a Kraft-manufactured food product with a 10-feet pole. In my eyes they stand at the same level as industrial poultry raisers and the like. Too bad this takes away a lot from the value of Amazon's first place.

  85. Awesome: Props to the tax-evasion based BM by evildarkdeathclicheo · · Score: 1

    Gotta love the anarchist spirit in this one, my heart goes out to anyone who gets ethical kudos for having a business based on not paying taxes. Woot!

  86. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't have to legally in all states - YET. But they will.

  87. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Golddess · · Score: 1

    At some point, we have to figure out how e-tailers can and should responsibly collect sales taxes.

    Weren't such things were already figured out back in the days of mail-order catalogs?

    --
    "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
  88. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by StupidKatz · · Score: 1

    And the purchaser - NOT THE SELLER - is responsible for use taxes.

    Of course, the utterly vast majority of folks don't pay use tax, even among those that know of it. Sort of illustrates our viewpoint on taxes if we're not being threatened over non-payment.

  89. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

    It's an advantage, but I still buy everything on Amazon and Amazon collects sales tax here.

    Especially with prime. It's cheaper and more convenient than driving or walking to a store.

  90. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by MimeticLie · · Score: 1

    They do pay sales tax in states where they have a physical presence, or rather their customers do. I pay Kentucky sales tax whenever I buy something from Amazon, and I have no problem doing so. If people in other states aren't paying the use tax, how is that Amazon's fault? It has no say in how those people file their tax returns.

  91. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I've never ever ever never ever taken the lack of sales tax into account"

    AAAAAAAAAAAND

    "It's about... the price..."

    you DO realize that sales tax is part of the price you pay, right?

  92. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    No, you're right. Different states do things differently.

    I was wrong. State and local taxes should not be collected by Amazon. But I'm afraid that if they aren't, there are going to be more draconian measures to collect them, such as Amazon having to report transactions to taxing bodies.

    Thing is, nothing is for free. Over and over again, Americans, including the people who don't want to pay taxes, expect a certain level of government services but don't want to pay for them. The reason we've got this ridiculously complex system is because of all the special interest (money) groups that have gotten sweetheart tax laws passed just for them. Tax breaks for corn growers who make ethanol while food prices skyrocket, tax subsidies to Exxon and GE, that sort of thing.

    I used to work for the company that publishes the Revenue Act and all the tax laws. CCH is like WestLaw for tax law. I had to read a ridiculous amount of the 20k plus pages that make up that law and precious few of the complexities are there in order to protect the incomes of regular working people. Want to raise purebred racehorses? There's a tax law for you. Own a huge farming corporation like ADM? There's thousands of pages of goodies for you. Not a lot of pages for you and me, because we don't have lobbyists.

    Used to be the only lobbyists that regular people had were called "labor unions". They're gone now, except for public employees and a tiny sliver of the work force. Once they're gone, we have absolutely nobody looking out for us when it comes to having a voice in government. At that point, the only big money that will be in our elections will come from big corporations.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  93. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by mysidia · · Score: 0

    STATES RIIIIGHTS!!!!! Deeeeeerp!

    If you read history.... last time states got together and tried to declare they had some rights, there was a civil war. And the tyrannical central government in the north won that war.

    Ever since then, states have been completely enslaved to the US gov't; as mere faint images of their former selves. Any "rights" you see or think states have over the US gov't today, are quite illusory, because they were smashed with bullets and swords.

    It would be like arguing today that Britain has no right to continue laying these obscene taxes on us without representation...... the colonies having lost the revolution, and Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Edison, etc, executed as traitors, the lightbulb never invented, and Nikola Tesla burned as a witch for trying to experiment with this "electricity" stuff... dark magic.

  94. Reciprocal Relationship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon is the best company I have dealt with. Their products, prices and customer service are excellent, as well as their return policy and lack of sales tax, as well as usual free shipping. I vote with my wallet, and am sure to be disgruntled if pressure on Amazon from other retailers results in having to pay sales tax. I will surely make fewer taxable purchases if that happens. How it has actually worked in my case is that prior to discovering Amazon, I did not make certain purchases at all. I don't have to spend money in many cases, and I won't if I don't like the terms. I have spent thousands of dollars at Amazon that would otherwise be occupying my savings account. That is not a complaint, but a statement that reflects the fact that Amazon helps the economy.

  95. hi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i m not much impressed by amazon.com

  96. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Meski · · Score: 1

    It's Amazon's customers debt, I think. The state governments are just used to retailers collecting it from their customers for them. (back in the days when Australia had sales tax, manufacturers would claim exemption[1] from sales tax when buying from retailers, which seems to indicate it isn't something the retailer owes, but something the purchaser does. So the redirect you suggest could collect the sales tax from the end customer. A lot more bureaucracy for governments, which is why they try to force Amazon to be their collector.


    [1] because they'd charge sales tax on their 'downstream' products.

  97. Re:They obviously didn't poll any state government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost. Besides, if they actively negotiate with these states they may find a solution acceptable to those states, that actually does not sting as bad as expected. And, anyways, many other e-tailers collect those taxes and still manage to prosper.

    "not always placing your profit interests first and foremost" is a breach of fiduciary duty by the directors.