Amazon To Pay Texas Sales Tax

An anonymous reader writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting that Amazon.com will soon start collecting sales tax from buyers in state of Texas. 'Seattle-based Amazon, which had $34 billion in sales in 2010, has long opposed collecting taxes. That has drawn fire from state governments facing budget shortfalls and from traditional brick-and-mortar retailers, who say online sellers essentially give customers an automatic discount when they don’t collect taxes. Combs has estimated the state loses $600 million a year from untaxed online sales. However, Amazon has recently begun making deals with a number of states to collect sales tax. Those deals have usually included a one- to three-year window exempting Amazon from sales tax collection.'"

Comments

A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[plopez]

What! I thought they were all against job killing taxes!

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Dan667]

it is a tax that is the burden of regular people and they don't really care if taxes are hard on working families.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Phsaw, sales taxes disproportionately affect the poor and middle class. Of course they are in favor of it. I mean, they talk all the time about lowering taxes, but the subtext is always that they want to lower taxes on rich people. Just look at things like the Fair Tax. Does it really take more than about 15 seconds of examination to tell that it is a huge increase in the tax burden on the poor, as well?

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you haven't bothered to spend 15 seconds learning about the Fair Tax.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[cpu6502]

"Bah humbug" on your anti-R slam. Most states make Necessities tax free, so the poor are not hurt. They can still buy the food/clothing/rent they need to survive. It is only the well-off wasting their money on luxury, non-needed goods that pay the sales tax.

BTW someone below made a good point:

This tax is ALREADY owed by the citizens. It's called a "use" tax and is applied to out-of-state purchases. Nothing's really changed except that Texas is now forcing delinquent citizens to pay-up. In other words TX and other states are cracking-down on tax dodgers. (Tsk tsk tsk you tax dodgers.)

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

A few years ago I moved from Texas back to the West Coast. I had already paid sales tax on the goods that I had bought in Texas. I was told by a lawyer-y friend over some beers that technically I had to pay taxes on all of the stuff I brought in from out-of-state. We may be "tax dodgers" but the tax code is hardly fair.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Grishnakh]

That's not what I've heard. While here in Arizona we do indeed have sales-tax-free food (from grocery stores, not restaurants), from what other Slashdotters have said, that's not the case in many other states, including Alabama.

As for the use tax, that's fine if a state is cracking down on delinquent citizens. However, that shouldn't extend to forcing the retailer (out-of-state, with no presence in the state) to pay it for the delinquent citizens. It should only be the citizens who pay it, and if the citizen is delinquent, then the state should go after the citizen only. If that costs too much for the state, too bad. Going after entities that are out-of-state is a violation of interstate commerce and is unConstitutional.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "lawyer-y" friend is either incompetent or shooting his mouth off about area of law he knows nothing about.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Bengie]

Everything about our economy is "luxury". Cell phones are a "luxury", electricity is a "luxury", cars are a "luxury", education is a "luxury", access to health care is a "luxury".
I'm pretty sure there is quite a bit of stuff we can get by without as we have for the past 100,000 years.

A nomad life-style is base-line, anything above is a "luxury".

Income and property tax should be enough

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[fermion]

This is raising tax on the middle class, not those who pay for Rick Perry to be in office. Think how much sales tax, as a percentage of income, that a family that makes $40K a year pays. Now imagine how much Clayton williams pay as a part of income. He can travel to other countries for large purchases, hide money, and use other tricks to minimize overall tax rate. This is what is missing in the current tax debate. Most people of moderate income pay social security on all income, spend most of their money on purchases that are taxed, in addition to any income tax they may pay. Of course, in Texas basic food is not taxed, so the poor are not as screwed by the greedy governor and his friends.

What disappoints me is that conservatives could restructure the system, end sales tax, and generate income through other means, but they just do the same as always. Not cut costs, but tax more.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Sancho]

Clothing in Texas is taxed. Foods which are ready to consume at the time of sale are taxed.

Texas has one "tax free" day per year, sometime in August I think, to help families get their kids ready for school. Taxes on lots of things needed for school (school supplies, clothes, etc.) are removed for that day.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Adrian Lopez]

Most states make Necessities tax free, so the poor are not hurt. They can still buy the food/clothing/rent they need to survive. It is only the well-off wasting their money on luxury, non-needed goods that pay the sales tax.

The rich spend less in proportion to what they make than do the poor and the middle class, which is why sales tax is generally considered a regressive tax.

As for "luxury, non-needed goods", I feel there should be more to life than mere subsistence, and people shouldn't carry a greater tax burden just from wanting to make their lives a little less miserable. Instead of burdening these people with sales taxes, let's raise taxes on those who make their money off the backs of others.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Mabhatter]

I know states will get you on something large like an automobile because you have to get a title, BUT you also DIDN'T owe sales tax in the state you purchased the car, (but that state forces the dealer to collect on all sales) so they often credit the paid tax and you pay the difference so it's not double dipping.

Smaller merchandise falls under personal property because you paid the legal tax at point of purchase and own the product.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bah humbug" on your anti-R slam. Most states make Necessities tax free, so the poor are hurt less

FTFY. Also, do you really think those exemptions have anything to do with anybody who has an "R" next to their name on the ballot?

They can still buy the food/clothing/rent they need to survive.

Well, minus the whole clothing part. Also, Fair Tax doesn't have an exemption for any of the three, so you can guess how supporters feel about that.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Rooked_One]

Not only is it a "red" state, it is also the 4th largest city...

Interesting pilot city... There was just an article about how analytical people tend to be less religious, so it is also interesting to note that Houston probably falls high on the list of "christian majority cities" so the question begs... "Was Houston chosen for two reasons, because its the 4th largest, and also has a majority of people who ... (not trying to troll) perhaps don't analyze as much as people from less religious cities? If I offended, please accept my early apology.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, wizened one, please tell us how a $6,767 annual tax prebate on a family of four cancels out a 30% sales tax applied to everything that the family pays for, including their rent, food, and clothes. Yes, I know the liars who support the bill like to pretend that it is a 23% sales tax (it isn't). Yes, I know it exempts tax on used items (maybe you can explain how they are supposed to make use of used food and housing).

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Mabhatter]

The Fair tax is anything but.

Useful sales tax spending isn't linear by income. Everybody pays the same sales tax on Cable, telephone, etc. if you make $1 million then those expenses aren't 50x more than the average guy. Not to mention payroll taxes that are flat like social security (7% from employee and employer uo to $110k) or Medicare 2% of income... There is about 20% of taxes taken from your pay outside "income tax" just for getting paid.

Realize that the very rich people live off capital gains and interest income... None of THOSE taxes are taken out before the puny little 15% capital gains. They don't SPEND anywhere near the proportion of there income on personal effects that a regular person has to.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Moryath]

Indeed.

Republicans always love regressive taxation. They don't even mind the payroll tax that much since it's highly regressive (capping out means it applies on 100% of the income of the poor and middle class, but 10% or less of the income of the upper class).

We could fix the tax system by classifying ALL income as income and eliminating the "capital gains" cheating bullshit, and eliminating the payroll tax caps and simply making it apply to all wages. But that'd never fly, because it'd be fair to all instead of the regressive taxation the Republicans want.

Consider:
If you ONLY consider income tax, somewhere around 50% of people have "no tax liability." A whole fucking lot of them are the senile delinquent Tea Party followers who no longer work because they're retired; the rest are mostly stay-at-home parents.

If you add in payroll taxes, it drops to 18%.

If you add in sales taxes, it drops to around 10%.

If you add in the various FEES that Republicans like to pass (remember, fees are even MORE regressive as a percentage of income) - stuff like auto registration fees for instance - it's around 5%.

But the Republicans still insist on ranting about people who "don't pay taxes."

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[the eric conspiracy]

I've lived in several east coast states - MA, CT, NY, NJ etc. Not one of them taxed basic foodstuffs.

As far as going after entities that are out of state being unconstitutional, here is the story.

The Commerce Clause prohibits states from restricting interstate commerce. Regulation of interstate commerce is up to the FedGov. The question on this is what constitutes interstate commerce from a sales tax point of view was decided in the Supreme Court in 2011 Quill v. North Carolina which ruled that current law is that a company must have a physical presence before it can be required to collect state sales taxes.

HOWEVER the same decision also stated that the Commerce Clause gives the Feds power to regulate that; that is allow states to collect sales tax on some other basis.

Senators Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) introduced a bill that would allow states to collect sales taxes on internet sales.

This is why Amazon is going around and cutting deals - they can see the handwriting on the wall. The broad exemption to interstate sales tax in e-commerce is likely to end probably after the 2012 elections.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Surt]

I'm pretty sure they actually intend for the poor to eat used food in the fair tax dystopia.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[clang_jangle]

But apparently it's ok because as TFS says "[not collecting sales tax] has drawn fire from state governments facing budget shortfalls and from traditional brick-and-mortar retailers, who say online sellers essentially give customers an automatic discount when they donâ(TM)t collect taxes. Combs has estimated the state loses $60 million a year from untaxed online sales." That got me thinking... How much is it costing me to not be a thief? Hmmm.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

The statute does exist, it is never enforced but some legislative twit managed to get it passed. The fact is, it's just another tool that can be used to bludgeon you legally if you piss off the right people.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Grishnakh]

HOWEVER the same decision also stated that the Commerce Clause gives the Feds power to regulate that; that is allow states to collect sales tax on some other basis.

Yes, of course. I'm just arguing the current state of the law. The states have no authority to force out-of-state sellers to collect taxes, but yes, Congress certainly does have the authority to change things with a new law.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[aztracker1]

I'm personally and vehemently opposed to property taxes, just on premise. Simply because the ability for your property (something you own) to be removed from you for lack of action is wrong IMHO. I don't think that once you buy something you should be at risk of losing it for doing nothing. I don't mind licensing of drivers/vehicles in-use and being driven as this is a direct correlation of transit, separate from the ownership of a vehicle parked in a garage. I don't think it's possible to live on a large farm with no outside interaction, just the same, if you could, you shouldn't be at risk of losing it for doing so.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[icebraining]

However, that shouldn't extend to forcing the retailer (out-of-state, with no presence in the state) to pay it for the delinquent citizens.

They aren't. If you read TFA, Amazon is planning to expand to Texas, that's why they're forced to collect the taxes.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[mcavic]

I'm no expert, but if you eliminate the IRS and all of its expenses, and you eliminate the cost of tax preparation for individuals, and then you raise the same number of tax dollars as before, it would seem that the net effect on the tax payer would be slightly positive, and the net revenue for the government would be very positive.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[icebraining]

Since when did nomads need hunting permits, comply with health regulations to sell food they've grown and/or hunted, etc?

A nomad life is pretty much illegal nowadays.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Sales taxes are disproportionate? In what way? They are use taxes; the more you consume the more you pay. "The rich" buy more stuff and pay more sales taxes. Then again you may be talking about those stupid states that have sales tax on food. Many don't have tax on food.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[rtaylor]

The 2 largest expenses for many areas is police and fire. Without those two services your ability to own property is dubious anyway (any person or group stronger than you would take it or destroy it).

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Grishnakh]

I wasn't talking about TFA, I was responding to cpu6502's comment about use taxes. Yes, in Amazon's case the state has the right to force them to collect tax since they do have a physical presence, but for other sellers this isn't the case, and they have no right to "force delinquent citizens to pay-up" by going after the sellers.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you want to raise taxes on estheticians who remove back hair? That's sure calling out a small group of people. Hell, next we should raise taxes on people who let other people drink shots off of their stomachs. And the ones who perform foot massages. They are creepy anyway...

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost of the IRS is and always has been a red herring. We each pay about $40 yearly to fund the IRS. Not even all of that will go away, as you still have to have somebody make sure taxes are being payed and a bunch of bean counters to manage a prebate. You either have to have each person continue to file yearly or you have to have the manpower to audit an individual business and examine records down to the per-transaction level. Either way, you aren't going to be saving all that much money.

Meanwhile, rich people spend a tiny fraction of their income on anything that would get touched by a consumption tax. If you think Romney's 14% tax burden is low now, wait until you realize that he probably only spent 10% of his income for the year, giving him an overall tax burden under a Fair Tax system of somewhere in the lower single digits. Now, to go back to raising the some number of tax dollars as before, like you mentioned: if Romney is going to pay less and the total value is going to stay the same, where do you think the money Romney won't be paying will come from? I'll give you a hint: the middle class.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[thrich81]

A lot of the stuff that the rich buy in larger proportioins than the poor (legal and financial services for example) are not taxed, at least not in Texas which has a high sales tax.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[mcavic]

Yeah, that is true. Encouraging saving is good, except when you're talking about the rich who are hoarding cash. Even so, the thing I like about Fair Tax is that it significantly increases compliance, while hopefully decreasing cost somewhat. For example, illegal immigrants pay tax on their purchases, but presumably don't get the prebate.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Urza9814]

Except it's not. I'm all for rasing taxes on the wealth -- any a high national sales tax (like Europe's VAT) would be a GREAT way to do that. First, sales tax usually isn't collected on necessities -- food, clothing, things like that. Which is the majority of expenses for low income individuals. Secondly, with sales tax, the more you buy the more you pay. It's as close as you can feasibly get to a wealth tax. Who buys the most? Those with the most money. It doesn't matter if your money is direct income, capital gains, inheritance, or even "under the table" -- you still pay the sales tax when you spend it. It'd be nice to have a moderate sales tax on everything but necessities, plus an additional luxury tax (which we already have in some sense with "sin" taxes on things like alcohol and tobacco,) but sales tax as currently implemented alone would be an improvement over our current tax system.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Less than .3% of our population is here illegally, and they are among the poorest people in the country. Sure, you might get a nice tingle from making sure people aren't dodging their taxes, but the effect will be in the realm of a couple of tens of billions dollars on a budget measured in trillions. It is all a bunch of feel-good nonsense designed to distract from the core objective of anything that remotely resembles a Fair Tax: to pillage the middle class and line the pockets of the rich.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[shutdown -p now]

Reference, please. Pretty much everywhere I lived where there is a use tax, it only applies if the place where you have originally purchased the item didn't tax you on that purchase, or taxed you at a lower rate.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Artifakt]

Only four states exempt prepared foods from sales tax, and the definition of prepared varies so that for some of them, anything in a grocery store more complex than raw flour, eggs, and milk, such as frozen waffles, counts as prepared. The 4 states with the highest overall sales tax don't exempt prepared foods and two of them don't exempt non-prepared foods either. 13 states have a higher sales tax rate for prepared food than their general sales tax rate.
          18 states tax perscription drugs, and 37 of them tax non-perscription drugs. 41 states tax clothing, but 2 of them admittedly have a set threshold deliberately designed not to tax cheap clothing (either below $100 or $175).
    The reason there is no sales tax on rent is that real estate is by definition taxed by property taxes, not sales taxes. Every one of the states has property taxes paid by renters. Including rent in the your necessities list is thus disingenious at best.

Sounds like the anti-R slam is totally accurate.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Vancorps]

Whether or not you use your house it contributes to the neighborhood either negatively or positively. The seller value of a house is often determined in part by the houses nearby and what they've been selling for but also the condition they are in. Additionally, a house whether or not you are using it will appreciate in value. You have the option to borrow against this higher value. On top of all of this, property tax is almost always a city tax. In Vermont, my local school received most of its funding through property taxes.

Should property taxes be modified so that people that maintain their houses pay less while those that don't pay more? It's hard to say, people that don't keep up their house as well as others are probably not as well off so you would be disproportionately harming poorer people. Seems to me like the current strategy is at least fair. Of course that again depends on which city you're in. Different cities in different states probably vary wildly from my admittedly limited experience.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[i_ate_god]

Curious...

the website is accessible in the state, so why doesn't it have a presence in the state?

Has this ever been argued anywhere? I'd be curious to see the answers.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Grishnakh]

The website is also accessible in Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc. That doesn't mean that every business on earth should be subject to the laws of every country on earth.

Mail-order businesses were "accessible" before the internet too: you just had to call them on your telephone. Or get your hands on a catalog. Having a catalog in a customer's hands out-of-state doesn't constitute a physical presence, any more than you leaving your business card with a customer in another state obligates you to pay income taxes in that state.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually owned the property you wouldn't have to pay taxes. Instead, you own it in fee simple.

Beyond that, it's easy to tie up wealth in assets for generations. The alternatives to property tax and/or estate tax are along the lines of 'hereditary oligarchy' and I for one will pass on that. You might argue about what point at we should require people to support their societies, and we'll listen to that so long as it doesn't sound like "I shouldn't have to pay because I said so."

Next time, try to imagine that taxes are one of the fundamental ways to structure societies, and that societies should tend to be fair and equal things. Note: agreeing with this is somewhat socialist. Disagree? You have to explain on what basis it's okay to discriminate against people. Isn't logic fun?

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Sir_Sri]

How does it increase compliance? Unless you force everything to electronic transaction (and watch the privacy advocates on /. have a fit about that). It doesn't increase compliance, it eases it, those are two different things. I'm not an american, but I believe for out purposes I face a similar problem. My income is derived from 3 sources, work, scholarships, and research grants. My work income is obvious enough. Scholarships aren't taxable, again, obvious enough, but they do count towards total family income for certain low income benefits, and different benefits may or may not count them. Research grants are taxable, after expenses, and what is a valid expense can involve dozens of pages of paperwork.

If they were all just 'income' that would significantly ease my compliance costs, because I don't have to spend 8 or 9 hours every year reading through this years rules and sorting out all of the various ways those rules apply.

But that doesn't mean it increases compliance. In fact, with higher point of sales taxes it's in my interest to not declare purchases or sales of services to the government, since that could cut down costs for my customers and myself by 20% (if I was in the EU for example), and it would give me a competitive advantage over a big company that can't do that. Which is exactly what happens in Italy and Greece, and is presumably now happening in spain. Those huge masses of 'unemployed' people in spain and greece aren't just sitting around posting on /. all day. They're working under the table so to speak, and of course, unreliably. Cash transactions facilitate this because they aren't traceable.

Fundamentally the US, Canadian and a few other systems assume tax payers are trying to be honest. That's as flawed an assumption for the "Fair Tax" as it is for the existing income tax structures. Some countries happen to be more honest, or coerced into compliance through the use of credit cards and mobile phone payments etc. (e.g. Japan and Sweden) and some are quite happy to do business in cash under the table, for everything (Italy, Greece, India, Bangladesh). Making it easier for people to comply doesn't mean they will, and the more 'in your face' the tax is, the more likely people are to try and dodge it.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[cforciea]

Which, of course, assumes that the rich spend their money. Since the rich do not and instead reinvest it, your entire line of reasoning completely falls apart. If you want to tax wealth, you have to tax wealth. Also, as stated repeatedly, many national sales tax plans don't exclude necessities. And necessities don't even begin to close the gap between what the poor pay as a percentage compared to the rich. It's all a big lie.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[cforciea]

The rich buy less as a portion of their income. They tend to reinvest their money to make even more instead, whereas a poor person spends every dime that they make.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Virginia, a solid red state. Food is taxed at a nice 4.5%.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Patent Lover]

Virginia taxes at a nice 4.5% on food. Long live the red.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonono -

- Against taxes that *they* cant levy
- Against taxes, unless it hurts their internal pork

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Maxo-Texas]

A true "fair" tax.

Give everyone one deduction equal to half the national median income. (Currently $26k).

Then tax everyone at 25% of all income (including investment income) over that deduction.

It's simple.
It's very similar to our current progressive tax with a lot less rules.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[mcavic]

My thinking is that companies are less likely to under-report their income than individuals are. Plus, there are fewer companies to audit than there are individuals. When I buy something, the company doesn't know if I'm an auditor or not, and all I have to do is look at my receipt to know if they're charging sales tax. Yes, the company could keep the tax money for themselves, but I'd call that embezzlement. There may be one or two companies willing to try it, but probably not many.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't mind taxes that benefit them. It is federal level barriers to entry that the southern politicians tend to oppose. Here is why:

1. cost of living(not standard of living, mind you) is lower. Looks live average house prices in Houston are half that in SF, normalizing even for house footage. Food and other indicators are similarly priced.
2. wages are also lower, again with as much normalizing as possible, its about half

Now what happens when a federal wage floor is introduced that is above red state average wage level, but lower than the north? Unemployment in the south. As it becomes unsustainable to pay labor above what a business can earn, businesses fire those not worth the minimum wage. Not all those job opportunities are moved north either, but some are. It is one reason the northern politicians(and northern based corporation) tend to favor federally mandated wage floors. It protects them from cheaper and more productive labor in the south.

Taxes act in the exact same way as barriers to entry. The number of taxes that apply to a single consumer good are the sum of all the taxes applied to each intermediate item and labor tax on the long process of finally finishing the product. The tax we see on the receipt is just a fraction of the entire tax, which is close to about half the cost of the item, these days. Because wages and costs of living are so much lower in red states, any fixed tax acts just the same as the example of wage floors. It is a cost born by producers which is included in the costs of production, and is ultimately allowed or rejected by consumers.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Sir_Sri]

Depends where you are. If you're in india the 'auditor' determines how much your fine is based on how much you bribe him. In cash. Italy is notoriously similar, but not quite as bad. Small businesses are trying to dodge tax everywhere. But yes, big companies generally in civilized countries have to honestly report their business. Too many people need to know honest numbers for them to be able to lie about it. Investors, CEO's, CFO's, the government, unions etc. You can't have an on books revenue of 100 million dollars and have inexplicable outlays of 150 million dollars but no borrowing without raising some eyebrows.

Though as I say, small businesses everywhere are always trying to dodge tax. Ever paid a small business in cash? Especially a services business (repair guys for example), tipped a waiter in cash, paid a restaurant in cash? They're all trying to dodge tax on that, regularly. It's technically evasion and illegal. With big companies they simply pay the government for rules that let them expense things or offshore the money or the like.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[zippthorne]

The 2 largest expenses for many areas is police and fire. Without those two services your ability to own property is dubious anyway (any person or group stronger than you would take it or destroy it).

Only areas that don't have schools...

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[s0nicfreak]

Food: grow the seeds, compost the peels and etc. I don't see why used housing confuses you; unless you built your house yourself, odds are it was used when you got it.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[__aaltlg1547]

What! I thought they were all against job killing taxes!

What! I thought they were all against job killing taxes!

The state isn't raising taxes. The taxes were owed already. But the state had no way of taxing the sale or even knowing it had occurred. If you bought an item on line and didn't pay sales tax on it, you broke the law. You were supposed to notify the state that you bought the item and you are supposed to pay the tax.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Golddess]

This tax is ALREADY owed by the citizens. It's called a "use" tax and is applied to out-of-state purchases.

Correct.

Nothing's really changed except that Texas is now forcing delinquent citizens to pay-up.

Incorrect. What they are actually doing is getting Amazon, an out of state business, to collect sales tax on their behalf. Kind of curious what Texas would do if Amazon had just said no. Would they raid the USPS, UPS, FedEx, etc and destroy any packages coming in to Texas from Amazon?

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom loving Republicans letting the government decide what is and isn't a necessity? Please go on, what other irony can you present?

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Grishnakh]

Wow, and they call Arizona a backwards state....

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[rohan972]

It is all a bunch of feel-good nonsense designed to distract from the core objective of anything that remotely resembles a Fair Tax: to pillage the middle class and line the pockets of the rich.

Are you claiming that now, without a Fair Tax, the middle class are not being pillaged and the pockets of the rich are not being lined? I'm not an American and don't know the merits or otherwise of this tax proposal, but I'm curious what you think is in place now that will prevent the pillaging of the middle class and prevent the pockets of the rich being lined?

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[rtb61]

Yep, and those worthless, lazy, useless minimum wage types deserve nothing but working in misery until they die due to lack of healthcare. Whips and chains should also be legal again. When those miserable minimum wage types are slacking on their employer, thus stealing his money, the employer should be able to chain them to the machines and whip them until the work faster. Even the minimum wage is too high and should be taxed as much as possible to ensure the poor appreciate their bowls of gruel, sack cloth clothing, old horse blanket on their sleeping pallet, otherwise they might get all uppity.

Sales taxes should really be targeted at products that waste the most resources and generate the most pollution, punitive taxes that prevents socialism, specifically the socialism involved in socialising the lost resources and the pollution.

Waste ten times the energy or generate 10 times the pollution of the poorest and you should be paying 100 times the tax, a sound civil penalty to ensure lessons are learned, just as fines should be an 'equal' percentage of annual income to ensure 'equal' penalty.

Now when it comes to sales tax, here's the profit game Amazon wants to play, it's called cash flow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_flow, charging sales tax long before they actually pay for them ie borrowing money interest free from all the other tax payers so that Amazon can invest it and make money.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[teg]

I'm personally and vehemently opposed to property taxes, just on premise. Simply because the ability for your property (something you own) to be removed from you for lack of action is wrong IMHO. .

Two arguments:

1. Many of the services offered by a county are related to the property: Fire, police, water/sewage/garbage etc
2. Tax is a necessary evil. While it has many good side effects, it also has some bad ones - apart from actually taking away resources from you. A high tax rate on income and spending makes the economy less efficient - if there is a high tax rate on labour, it means that people and companies are more reluctant to trade work/goods. This makes for an efficiency loss in the society - behaviour has been changed by tax. Tax on property, on the other hand, doesn't have these side effects. Also, it is much harder to hide.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[shiftless]

I feel exactly the opposite. Property taxes are one of the few morally justifiable taxes, because there is only so much property. Why should somebody be able to just buy up a property in the middle of a populated area and sit on it for 50 years, without at least contributing some basic amount of tribute to the people who live and work in that area in the form of taxes?

Whereas why the hell should my basic right to travel be abridged, in the form of the government withholding my driver's license for no good reason? What oversight is there over the licensing, ticketing, and incarceration systems which ensures that the laws and punishments are fair and just? Don't tell me voters--they're misled and misinformed, which you are a prime example of.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[shiftless]

any person or group stronger than you would take it or destroy it

So instead of risking a hostile group somehow arising up and challenging me and all my neighbors, we just hand known tyrants the keys to the kingdom in the form of a badge and a gun. Nice tradeoff.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[shiftless]

Should property taxes be modified so that people that maintain their houses pay less while those that don't pay more? It's hard to say

No, it's easy to say: absolutely not, because this becomes just another tool of oppression. Who defines "maintain"? It's none of your goddamn business whether I maintain my property or not...so long as it's mine.

Now, if I fail to pay basic tribute to the community in the form of property taxes, then sure, take it away and sell it to someone who will put it to good use.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[shiftless]

This tax is ALREADY owed by the citizens

No, this is where you are wrong. I don't owe you shit. Tax me? Fuck you, I'll contact the manufacturer directly and get a "cash only" price.

For Christ's God damned sake, we teach our kids in school about our ancestors revolting and killing mother fuckers over taxation. Why don't people listen, learn, and apply those facts to the situation at hand to understand why this is so infuriating, wrong, and not to be accepted by a (struggling) economy which has grown accustomed to NOT paying sales tax across the Internet?

Un fucking believeable that the government, let alone "free thinking" individuals, would be so stupid as to think this is a good idea.

Fuck Amazon for capitulating to these tyrants.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Hognoxious]

that shouldn't extend to forcing the retailer (out-of-state, with no presence in the state) to pay it for the delinquent citizens.

It isn't forcing them to pay it; it's forcing them to collect it.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[josecanuc]

But isn't one of the primary goals of the "Fair"Tax to be more fair, where fairness here is defined to treat all equally regardless of status/race/etc? There necessarily has to be some shift in how much each group pays, since right now it's not "fair".

It's an appealing idea -- equal justice under the law translated to taxing. But if you believe a progressive taxing system is better, then of course you will think poorly of FairTax.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas doesn't care unless you are making +250,000 $ like the state representatives. They need to make more tax money so that they can cut taxes on the $250,000+ guys again. Also that comptroller has a lot of friends that make that much so she is all for this. Texas will cut education (the rich crowd send their kids to private schools anyway) and they don't care if the middle class have to pay more in taxes or not. Then they will wrap up the turd with a nice bow, give it the republican party blessing and all the brain dead will republicans who vote party line will eat it up as if it's the finest french dark chocolate.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas

The state of Texas has a 6.25% sales tax with exemptions for food, prescription medications and over-the-counter medications.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I'm not saying everything is peachy now, just that things like the Fair Tax are designed to make it much worse.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[cforciea]

And this is why nobody takes Libertarians seriously.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[cforciea]

Everybody thinks they are super clever when they start talking about a "true" fair tax, but the basic question is an argument over what "fair" means. Is it fair for each person to pay an equal portion of their income in taxes? What about the same flat dollar amount per person, wouldn't that be more fair? Or maybe it would be fair for the people who by far benefited the most from the political and economic systems of this country to put the most back into the system that helped them get where they are in the first place?

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[cforciea]

In order for "fair" taxation to be anywhere near fair, you have to assume that there is actual equal opportunity for success in this country. Until you can make the claim with a straight face that a poor black kid growing up in downtown Oakland has the same opportunity as a kid with rich parents growing up in San Rafael, I don't have any idea why you would think there is anything fair about taxing the same way as adults when the former claws his way up into the middle class and the latter gets to coast by and still be rich.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[mcavic]

All true. But tips would no longer be taxable under Fair Tax, so the waiter who was previously dodging some of their income tax would be forced to pay increased sales tax on their personal purchases. Same with any individual who's under-reporting.

For businesses, yes, sloppy record keeping or false record keeping would be a serious problem. But it is already. What Fair Tax does is ensure that the person paying a tax is different than the person who's reporting the tax, thereby altering the incentives for cheating. I can no longer simply lie on my tax return - I'd have to conspire with someone.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not similar, it's regressive. And the rich will still get out of paying taxes as they do now, the only difference is that now you are charging 25% on the people making $30,000/yr

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are making a 15 second snap judgement on a year long subject. The FairTax, when you understand it, is more progressive than the current income taxes. This is a peer reviewed conclusion within the academic community.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Grishnakh]

Doesn't matter. A state government has no right to do that to an entity that's entirely outside that state's borders.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Maxo-Texas]

Okay, let's talk about a "same flat dollar amount per person".

Each citizen's share of the current federal tax bill is $10,000.
But that includes children and retired people with no income.

Each working citizen's share of the current federal tax bill is $30,000.

So right at the start, you destroy the incentive to work at any job which pays less than $30. And effectively any job that pays less than $55k.

Now, we could reduce the size of government by 80% and get that down to $6k. Still- no point in working minimum wage jobs. The government takes almost everything you make after you add in state and local taxes.

So I don't think it would be "fair" and more importantly, i don't think it would be feasible to charge the same dollar amount to every person. Your thoughts?

---
Now, about the second point. Yes, a fair tax with a 25% rate with a $26k deduction would actually increase (by 2 to 7%) the rate paid by the people who benefited the most. The top .1% pay about 16% federal taxes and about .03% state and local taxes. Their total tax load is about 17%. It scales from there to the middle income folks who pay a total tax load of about 42%, then "down" to the impoverished who pay about 28% total tax load of their income.

---
I agree... "fair" is tough and more to the point- there are different "fairs". But in my opinion, the wealthy are starting to be pigs at the trough and if they are not careful they are going to push this too far. I think they already have but the abortion issue and their ownership of both "conservative" and "liberal" media is helping them maintain control.

At some point, folks who haven't had a job for several years are going to start to get riled up. We can't imprison 20% of the country. If we remain democratic at all, there will be much higher taxes on the wealthy. At least we could have a simple tax system to reduce compliance costs.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Maxo-Texas]

You missed the deduction.

$30,000 - $26k = $4k.

You pay 25% of $4k or a tax of $1k.

If you make $26k or less, you pay no federal tax.

By setting the deduction at the national median income, it will scale with inflation.

<quote>
Income        Tax Owed        SSI        Take Home
$26,000        $0            $1,950.00    $24,050.00
$30,000        $1,000        $2,250.00    $26,750.00
$50,000        $6,000        $3,750.00    $40,250.00
$100,000        $18,500        $7,500.00    $74,000.00
$1,000,000    $243,500        $7,500.00    $749,000.00
$100,000,000    $24,993,500    $7,500.00    $74,999,000.00
</quote>

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[plopez]

Then they will wrap up the turd in the flag ...

fixed that for you.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

You're trying too hard.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

So, frozen waffles are now a fundamental right of man.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Cute Fuzzy Bunny]

Its worse than that. There is this presumption that you can just start charging sales tax and automatically add that amount to the state coffers with no unintended consequences.

I like to buy stuff from amazon because they dont collect CA taxes, at least not yet. I do that because the politicians in the state will waste every penny I give them on horseshit and stuff that makes them feel powerful.

I'd just as soon that they dont have a chance to spend my money, so when Amazon starts collecting CA tax, I'll simply start buying from some other etailer thats out of state that doesn't. I would expect this will have a clear cut impact on amazons bottom line, causing them to urp up thousands of workers. Hell, I can buy half the stuff I buy from amazon directly from the chinese companies that make it, without tax.

So I'm afraid to tell all the politicians in Texas and California who cant live within their means. You aren't getting my money no matter how hard you try. If you backflip enough and spend more millions of my tax dollars on all of this legislation to try to squeeze more money out of me, I'll simply leave the state.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Cute Fuzzy Bunny]

You'd have thought that we'd have gotten rid of the poor by now. Nobody seems to want them and they dont seem to contribute much. I guess we need someone to buy all the surplus hamburger helper and powdered eggs.

Maybe the state of texas willl give everyone some of that 1970's surplus cheese in exchange for paying their sales taxes.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[gtall]

Uh, the current Republican plans are for a flat tax system (well, two tiers) and no exemptions, which...errr...is pretty much what you are advocating.

I think the problem is that you want to believe the problems with the tax system are a function of the Republicans. Both parties are to blame. What to see fees, go to New York State...been run by Democrats for years, high taxes, high fees, high property taxes, and yet still the state manages to only implode in slow motion. I will grant you a lot of that started under Rockefeller, yet the Democrats picked up the mantle and have been running with it ever since.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Texas. I buy a LOT of stuff from Amazon, mainly because of the free shipping and the good prices. Now I'll be getting it elsewhere for slightly more but less than sales tax.

It sounds to me like Amazon should be expanding their physical locations into states where they have the fewest number of potential customers, such as Wyoming, the Dakotas, etc.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Idarubicin]

The parent poster's point, which you seem to be entirely missing, is that the so-called, deceptively-named 'Fair Tax' would make the situation significantly worse.

There is a significant difference between "This particular proposal for change is bad" - which is what was actually said - and "The current situation is good" -- which is what you're imagining you heard.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[ILongForDarkness]

I think that if $6767 is less than 30% of what you earn at least $22556 which is above the poverty line for a family of 4. If you could charge a 30% tax and actually have the rich pay that 30% not 14% or something because of it all being dividends, capital gains and flavor of the month tax shelters the country would be much much better off. 30% would probably not be necessary under that scenario as the real take of the US currently is 26.9% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP#cite_note-0). Somewhere between 23-30 would probably be what is needed to get things to work out. You'd have a huge savings in effort complying and enforcing the tax code though I think. Easiest really to take the money at source though not at sales: 30% withheld by companies on your pay, 30% withheld by brokerage when you sell stock etc. It would illiminate the problem of having to track down people doing things under the table to avoid the sales taxes: for the most part the people paying you are very public and relatively few in number versus: every citizen and every combination of transactions.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[ILongForDarkness]

I don't get why Fair Tax proposals focus on a sales tax as the method. To me that is crazy you have likely trillions of transactions a year in a country the size of the US. Assuming the whole population worked and got paid weekly you'd only have ~15B paychecks to tax/audit. It would be much easier to knock on the doors of big companies and confirm that their 10k+ employees had their taxes withheld correctly than to go to the 10k+ employees and ask for receipts for everything they bought, or even just ask for pay stubs. If the employer is responsible for collection the IRS would have a much easier time providing over-site: there is a order of magnitude (at least) fewer companies than people earning income and even than with limited resources you could go after the Apple, GE, HP etc of the world and get a large percentage of the working population with a few dozen businesses. Businesses would have an incentive to report correctly because they get a write-off for the salaries (if they over report than the employees will have an incentive to complain about it). Both employees and employers would have incentives to push the reporting as close to the true value as possible.

In a sales tax model the opposite is the case. If things are done under the table the buyer and seller can find a middle point that they both can live with. The typical plumber "I'll fix it for 100 cash or 130 cheque" kind of thing. They find a point in the middle where the plumber makes more money than they would if he paid taxes on the transaction and the home owner gets a deal on the service. Contractors will always be a hard one to enforce but you can at least make sure that those people that are employees or stockholders in companies pay taxes on money they get. The only real way I can think of getting contractors in the loop for sure would be to eliminate paper currency so everything is recorded which is a privacy nightmare, but then again once the government has a right to tax your income you have little privacy anyways since they need to know where you work, usually ask for lots of personal info when it comes to determining which tax breaks you get etc.

If you still want to encourage people to save then offer tax free savings accounts. Employee enrolls in a program with an investment firm or whatever, gives the paperwork to his employer to have his taxes at source reduced and problem solved. I'd axe all other sorts of tax complications write offs for home interest, children, charities, etc. Let the market decide what is important don't use the tax code to artificially make some transactions more desirable.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[ILongForDarkness]

I think that is what it will end up coming to when the legislature figures out the internet (give it 20 years ;-)). Since you are a virtual store and have no physical presence we deem you to be located wherever the current customer is located. Thus you need to charge that customers state sales tax. If you don't like it than block your site from processing orders from that state. It is a similar thing to how they want to make companies responsible for making sure that their site doesn't infringe US law even if it is based outside of the US, or that porn sites comply to US record keeping laws etc. Don't like it don't do business with our citizens seems to be the name of the game.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[ILongForDarkness]

I live in Canada but I'm sure cities do the same things everywhere. My town is growing really quickly (from 80k to 120k in 10 years). There subdivisions going up all the time. The city wants to raise our property taxes by ~6% a year for the next few years since "because of our rapid growth our current water treatment facilities are insufficient". They give tax breaks to developers to build, they advertise the city as a great place to live and then when the people come they expect the EXISTING residents to pay for the new peoples water treatment plant. It is crazy. Politicians want to feel powerful by having all sorts of great things happening in their city, ward whatever but they don't want to make the people causing the growth to pay for it (by for example having a surcharge on developers to cover the fractional cost of water treatment facilities that their buildings are going to use). Oh but 10 years down the road once we've all paid for the new infrastructure they'll have 50% more citizens to pay taxes to keep new projects going all the time. The taxes that were raised to pay for the infrastructure will never go away the money will just be spent on parks, rec centres etc.

I'm all for police, fire etc the so called "essential services", but growth and pet projects like skating rinks and parks should be paid for by the users. If a neighborhood wants a park that bad the 50 homeowners can put their money together and buy a plot of land and make a park. The guy that sits on his couch all day shouldn't have to pay for a park so someone else's kids can have somewhere to play (which to be honest in my area would be at best 8 months a year because of weather). Since when can't kids run in a field/forest or whatever but need tended lawns and swing sets and such is beyond me. Heck when I was a kid 25 years ago we climbed trees not 10k jungle gyms and I'm pretty sure it was just as much fun.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Sir_Sri]

Ah, but tips in cash would be hush hush. I tip you 4 dollars in cash, or 5 dollars on the credit card. Your pick. Which is exactly what happens now. Or if I tip 4 dollars in cash it's all pocketed, but if I pay 4 dollars on CC it has to be taxed.

There's no real incentive for either party to not conspire (in fact, in many places, e.g. india, the conspiracy is institutionalized, and everyone knows it's happening, it is even on signs occasionally) unless they work for a business or are selling you a good. Any sort of service that can be paid in cash can be done without reporting.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[jbenwell]

Fee simple is subject to taxation and eminent domain. Allodial ownership isn't.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[rohan972]

It's not that I'm missing it, I'm questioning whether it would actually do it worse to a significant degree. The ultra rich line their pockets at their leisure right now. The middle class is being destroyed right now. Unless you've got an idea to stop that, if you are going to support the sinking of the ship, don't expect too much congratulations for not supporting someone who, according to you, would have sunk it a bit faster.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[cforciea]

Now, about the second point. Yes, a fair tax with a 25% rate with a $26k deduction would actually increase (by 2 to 7%) the rate paid by the people who benefited the most. The top .1% pay about 16% federal taxes and about .03% state and local taxes. Their total tax load is about 17%. It scales from there to the middle income folks who pay a total tax load of about 42%, then "down" to the impoverished who pay about 28% total tax load of their income.

Take a look just a second at the numbers you posted. If they pay .03% in state and local taxes, and those are in the form of 6-10% consumption taxes, then the reasonable assumption is that if you give them a 25% consumption tax, they would pay somewhere around 1.25% of their income into it. Actually, it would probably be less, because the tax would encourage them to spend even less and invest even more. If you can explain to me how going from 17% down to less than 2% is an increase in their tax burden, I'm all ears.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[cforciea]

That chart assumes that rich people will pay a consumption tax on every dollar they earn, which is completely wrong. It's also worth noting that the person who pays the most as a percentage of their income on your chart is the guy making $100,000. And that's even ignoring other regressive tax and fee structures, which move the line to a lower income.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[cforciea]

[Citation Needed]

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Idarubicin]

Ah, of course. Being opposed to a proposal to punch more holes in the hull means that I'm "going to support the sinking of the ship". What bizarre logic you employ.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Maxo-Texas]

You crossed up federal tax with state tax.

Current top tax load is about 17% federal + .03% state and local.

I'm proposing essentially 25% federal tax on all income (investment and salary) for the top and the state and local taxes would still be .03%.

17.03% increased to 25.03% would be an increase.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Maxo-Texas]

And yet, it's still a substantial increase than what people are paying now.

Currently the highest total tax rate falls on the $60,000 to $100,000 bracket.

And the wealthy pay much lower taxes than I'm proposing.

Yes- I am proposing that they should pay federal income tax on every dollar they earn - dividends, salary, etc. Since I'm proposing it, I don't see how it can be "wrong". It's the proposal.

It sounds like you are proposing something with a higher rate on the wealthy?

As a person making around the $100k tax bracket, I can say that's similar to my tax load now under the current system and I'm doing fine. Living on about 60% of my income and saving the rest.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[rohan972]

Logic? My mistake, I thought we were talking about American politics. If [YOUR SIDE] is the Democrats or Republicans, I'd say you are busy punching more holes in the hull.

That's a perspective from a non-citizen, judging by your constitution and the actions of both parties when in power. The propaganda, the currency manipulation, the open sale of political influence in your country make something like the "Fair Tax" small scale in the race to sink the ship.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[cforciea]

Ah, here's the confusion. A Fair Tax has a very specific meaning: it is a consumption tax. I had no idea you were talking about an income tax. None of what I've said applies to you.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[cforciea]

Also, I should have read more closely, as you clearly stated income up above. Sorry.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Maxo-Texas]

Lol. True, the way they overloaded the "fair" term means it can be confusing which I believe is their intent.

The closest you could come to a consumption tax on the wealthy would be a wealth tax. They have that in some countries. Essentially 2% of your total wealth is taken even if you didn't earn a penny. Basically a property tax on money.

The only reason I want estate taxes is not raise wealth but to break up concentrations of wealth so at best we get 1 or 2 generational oligarchs. Since that's fairly unavoidable under any system, I can accept that.

It's not good for the country to carry it on too long. American done the right way is harsh but a meritocracy so that the best and the brightest are running the show and productive.

America done the wrong way is the less competent children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren (often out right idiots) inheriting judgeships, goverment elected offices, CEO jobs, movie star jobs, doctor jobs, etc. while excluding competent people who simply have less money because their grandfather had less money.

It is ultimately destructive to us as a nation to proceed down this nepotistic path.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Idarubicin]

Dude, get a grip. In your ranting, it looks like you've lost track of what you're arguing about.

You seem to be operating under the impression that, when faced with two bad choices (in this case, the status quo versus the grotesquely-misnamed Fair Tax), it's never possible to have a reasonable discussion about which is worse without also endorsing one of the choices.

Your reasoning continues to be nonsensical.

Incidentally, I'm not from the United States; I neither live there nor hold U.S. citizenship. I don't know where you're from either, but I assume their principal export is asshattery.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not opposed to other forms of taxation, just property and inheritance taxes...

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[rohan972]

Why don't you look at the AC's reply to my question and compare it to yours before you decide who is an asshat? I asked for clarification on what he was saying and he gave it, a reasonable and rational communication.

You, on the other hand, began your post with a slightly insulting tone assuming I'd missed the posters point. I hadn't, I highlighted it with my question and had his response been different it might have led to a longer conversation. You finish it by telling me I've imagined hearing something when the text of my question makes no statement about having heard anything.

You make false assumptions, every post you make has an insult or demeaning manner and you evidently don't know what rant means? Your communication (in this case) has no intellectual or social value, so I'll stop encouraging it. By all means, feel free to post last.

Re:A red state raising taxes!!??!!!???

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, logically speaking, sales taxes affect the affluent. Think about it - the more you spend, the more you pay tax. It is true that if you are affluent and mobile, or affluent and stingy, you won't pay taxes in a given jurisdiction, either because you travel, or because you odn't spend money.

Think about it. I buy a pair of bargain pants, and pay %12 on $30. My affluent neighbour buys a pair of high end pants and pays %12 on $300. Seems relatively fair to me!

Note to all governments

[Pope]

How about stop spending more money than you have?

Re:Note to all governments

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is on the revenue side, moron.

Re:Note to all governments

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you think this law came about? Texas needed to pay for more things because it's population is increasing, but being a red state they decided to cut taxes. Because that's what Republicans do. So then shockingly they did not have MORE money. So they had to look in odd shoes for any spare change rather than raise taxes. Cause they can't raise taxes. They can have usage fees. Like cigarette usage fees, lottery usage fees, strip club usage fees, etc. And in one of their shoes they found amazon.com! And this isn't a tax. It's a, uh... uh... Amazon Internet Usage Fee.

Re:Note to all governments

[Albanach]

Texas hardly has a reputation for being profligate in its spending, and this does not increase the tax burden on anyone in the state. Texas already has a use tax set at an equal rate to sales tax and payable on purchases brought into the state, such as those from Amazon.

It's a lot easier for states to stay in their budget if they can make sure every taxpayer is picking up his or her own share.

If your argument is that taxes should be lower, that's a separate issue altogether and one for the political process to resolve. If Texans would prefer fewer services in return for lower taxes, I'm pretty sure they have the option of voting for that.

Re:Note to all governments

[gnick]

Amazon Internet Usage Fee.

The law says "Brick and mortar presence". It may not say "Amazon" on the front, and I'm a self-confessed Amazon fan-boy, but if you set up a 100% owned brick-and-mortar subsidiary in the state, then yeah, you owe them taxes or you need to set up in a state in which you won't. Figure out whether you come out ahead making 0% taxed sales from Texas or shipping from somewhere else.

Re:Note to all governments

[Surt]

Deficit spending is clearly the right strategy some of the time. Particularly if you spend your deficit on infrastructure that grows the economy and results in increased wealth to pay back that debt. The real problem comes when you spend that debt on ephemera like elder health care that gets you nothing but additional expenses.

Re:Note to all governments

[Surt]

It's shorthand for 'state issues bonds it may not be able to repay'.

Re:Note to all governments

[tthomas48]

I thought that was what "tax-cut" was shorthand for.

Re:Note to all governments

[Surt]

I think that's 'state may cause itself to be unable to repay bonds'.

Re:Note to all governments

[wshs]

So, Texas has a tax on articles exported from another state?

Re:Note to all governments

[tthomas48]

Ultimately this boils down to "members of one party signed pledge they'd never raise taxes, do everything they can to conduct business as normal without raising anything explicitly called a tax".

Re:Note to all governments

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas needs higher taxes because its coffers are horribly mismanaged. They needlessly waste hundreds of millions of dollars every year. They have plenty of money to pay for important government services. The problem is, the large pool of funds they have, the easier it is to fraudulently abuse the system. As such, Texas has absolutely no inventive to responsibly spent its tax revenue. As a result, their only options are to increase taxes or responsibly spent the tax dollars available. Obviously in their mind they have only one option available.

Re:Note to all governments

[Albanach]

So, Texas has a tax on articles exported from another state?

No, they have a tax on items imported from another state and then kept within the state of Texas and used by a resident.

Many if not most states have a similar tax.

Re:Note to all governments

[Jeng]

So I take it that you have always paid for your vehicles all cash up front as well as your house so you can really tell them because you lead by personal example, right?

Re:Note to all governments

[Anonymous Coward]

How about stop spending more money than you have?

I'm guessing you watch Fox News, dontcha?

How about we apply that to everyone? No more banks lending money. No more lending to businesses to grow (you know, that whole silly investment thing?)

Yup, nice sound bite you have there. Critical thinker you are not.

Re:Note to all governments

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming you meant "it's" to be posessive, do you understand how taxes work? Or, more generally, how "percentages" work? If the effective tax rate is 3%, then it takes 3% of the total income to cover things. It doesn't matter if there are seven hundred or seven thousand people, if a given percentage is enough, then adding more people doesn't make a bit of difference.

Re:Note to all governments

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet that Texas funds your state.

Re:Note to all governments

[SwedishPenguin]

I don't know about nothing - apart from the obvious humane perspective, if retiree's get proper care, young "productive" members of society will have to take less time off to care for their elder relatives when they're sick.

Re:Note to all governments

[Surt]

It's a losing proposition overall in that dimension because we actually increase the total amount of sick time for the elders where the younger will have to provide care.

Re:Note to all governments

[Patent Lover]

Sorry, that only works when you don't want to start wars of aggression.

Re:Note to all governments

[benjamindees]

Including class warfare...

Re:Note to all governments

[jdavidb]

Deficit spending is clearly the right strategy some of the time

I'm always wary any time somebody says the word "clearly." If it is really "clear," it is usually unnecessary to point out how clear it is, because everybody would see it.

Clearly there are people who disagree with your assertion.

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

And that's what's usually going on when someone uses words like "clearly." Usually there is another point of view that they are dismissing out of hand. That point of view might be reprehensible or unthinkable, but then again, it might hold value.

In politics we are dealing with the power to make other people act according to our view of how the world is, how it works, and how it should be, so the word "clearly" becomes even more dangerous in political discussions. The fact is that we do not all agree, and in the end somebody is going to force their view of what should "clearly" be done on people who, for whatever reason, do not believe in that course of action. e.g., the Iraq War. Ten Commandments in schools. Laws against gay marriage. Welfare. Welfare for corporations. In politics, all of these issues involve a majority (or pseudo-majority) forcing their "clear" view of the world onto a minority who do not share that view and who may well have rational objections to it.

Re:Note to all governments

[Surt]

Indeed, when I said clearly, what I meant was that the positive evidence was incontrovertible. Those who would deny that are covering their ears and yelling la la la in an effort to avoid the truth. I'm disdainful of the other point of view because it's unscientific, and I strongly prefer science to mythology.

Re:Note to all governments

[jdavidb]

I strongly prefer science to mythology.

But you are talking about purely subjective value judgments. You may call it "science," but what I am hearing is "ideology."

Your original statement was: "Deficit spending is clearly the right strategy some of the time." That depends completely on what your goals are. Since not everyone shares the same goals, values, and frame of reference as you, your conclusion may be clearly true for you, but not for others.

We're not talking about things like measuring the speed of light or determining how to build a bridge, here. We're talking about what people want out of life and civilization, and what people believe a government should do, and the last time I checked, those are very subjective and vary from person to person. Saying that your view on this is "scientific" and differing views are "mythology" is simply an ad hominem logical fallacy.

Re:Note to all governments

[lightknight]

Of course it is: the people still have some money left, and the government is in need of it.

Re:Note to all governments

[lightknight]

That's what the California legislature thought as well...

Re:Note to all governments

[lightknight]

No. Contractions and expansions are part of standard market operations, and prolonging them or putting them off until later (with accrued interest, which is the little gotcha) will always make things worse.

Over time, those interest payments amount to a large amount of capital spent repaying loans, as opposed to investment in new opportunities.

Re:Note to all governments

[Solandri]

Completely agree that deficit spending is the right strategy some of the time. The problem is that in a few years when the economy is booming, most of the people advocating deficit spending now will still be advocating deficit spending then. Anyone who calls for budget cuts so we can pay back some of our accrued debt will be ostracized as hating children and poor people and military programs. After all, "the economy is booming; you'd have to be crazy to want to cut spending."

Either you increase government spending in bad times and decrease it in good times. Or you hold government spending constant regardless of the economy. You do not increase government spending in bad times, and increase it in good times.

Re:Note to all governments

[riverat1]

Government spending as a percentage of GDP is not that different from what it's been since the 1940's.

Re:Note to all governments

[teg]

hey cocksucker, the problem is the spending.

the revenue is. what. it. is.

it's the spending that is off the charts.

It is definitely partially a revenue problem... a big part of the US problem is unfunded "temporary" tax cuts made by George Bush. Given that they were "temporary", they didn't fund them.

Also, I believe in determining what the government should do first (not all it does today, at least in Norway) and then see how to fund it afterwards. And then go over the list again with an even more critical eye.. But things like education, defense, police, healthcare and public infrastructure need funding at a certain level, and then revenue must match over time - budget deficits in hard times are OK, but that means a budget surplus in good times. Not a permanent deficit.

Re:Note to all governments

[teg]

Deficit spending is clearly the right strategy some of the time. Particularly if you spend your deficit on infrastructure that grows the economy and results in increased wealth to pay back that debt. The real problem comes when you spend that debt on ephemera like elder health care that gets you nothing but additional expenses.

Actually, spending on elder health care and kindergartens/schools allows for a much larger part of the population to be working, and thus is a net gain. Also, I like to think that some of the reasoning behind it is the same as in why so much resources and personell is spent on badly wounded soldiers: Because the rest knows that the same would be done for them.

As to deficit spending, the problem isn't care of the elderly... that's a burden a society may or may not take. The underlying problem is that it is tempting to provide more services without raising taxes - or cut taxes without cutting expenses. As a result, many countries had a deficit in good times and already have a hefty debt when the current crisis came.

Re:Note to all governments

[loxosceles]

I thought all states technically require that.

However, it's unenforceable in most cases, so the only cases where someone usually pays it are:
a) They're a goodie-two-shoes.
b) They itemize the purchase when reporting to government. For instance, itemizing something to deduct it from taxes, without paying a use tax, could theoretically be noticed by the State.

Re:Note to all governments

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, Texas Constitution prevents the state to have any deficit. It is called a "balance budget" provision.

Re:Note to all governments

[Surt]

And yet they have a 200 billion dollar debt. Magic!
http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-texas-debt-clock.html

A deficit is whatever you spend beyond your present balance, whether you call it a bond or something else.

Re:Note to all governments

[pyro_peter_911]

We finally have a winner. NO amount of tax revenue will EVER be enough to satisfy the appetite for money and power that surrounds Washington DC. Republicans and Democrats are on the same team even though they're wearing different jerseys. They want power and control. They want to make their friends rich and powerful. You're not their friend.

Peter

Re:Note to all governments

[gtall]

Also, people forget the Bush tax cut was in response to the government bringing a lot more than it spent. And the prognosis was for surpluses as far as the eye could see...which was about 10 years, and that's why they were scheduled to disappear then...but Obama and Republicans conspired to extend them for 2 years.

What should have happened was they should have disappeared the first year a deficit reappeared.

Texas gov gives huge corp tax breaks

[Dan667]

a tax break for regular people that actually helps the economy? Nope, can't have that.

Re:Texas gov gives huge corp tax breaks

[chemicaldave]

Lets be honest. You're already saving a lot of money when you purchase online as opposed to brick and mortar.

Re:Texas gov gives huge corp tax breaks

[DogDude]

Not paying sales tax "helps the economy"? What economy? The economy of Amazon.com? It sure as shit doesn't help your local economy.

Re:Texas gov gives huge corp tax breaks

[Dan667]

giving huge corporations tax holidays and then raising tax rates on working families in Texas does not help the local economy. Buying stuff helps the economy a lot more than that and people have something to show for it.

Re:Texas gov gives huge corp tax breaks

[s0nicfreak]

Sure it does. paying no sales tax on Amazon means I have more money left over to spend at local businesses.

Re:Texas gov gives huge corp tax breaks

[lightknight]

Yeah, right. Because all those college students picking up their books for less, freeing them up to spend funds on car payments or rent isn't helping the local economy. Or because people can buy books that local booksellers aren't carrying, but are perfectly willing to sell you, for a higher price, after you spend $10 in gas to drive to their store, and pay for the book in advance.

Or people selling things, like CDs or pottery on Amazon, who derive some income from said operations.

Bro, you have a twisted view of what 'helping your local economy' is supposed to look like.

Re:Texas gov gives huge corp tax breaks

[lightknight]

Indeed. The extra tax means I will not be spending money locally, but will more earnestly be looking abroad for people selling for much less.

Re:Texas gov gives huge corp tax breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor lost soul. If I have mo money in my pocket that didn't otherwise go the the coffers of the state, "I" choose where that money is spent.

It comes down to whom you best trust to allocate you hard-earned money: the government or yourself . I prefer to choose how and where I spend on goods, services, or investment. Investment is not bad as it frees capital for others (families and businesses alike) to buy a new home, car, etc. or grow business (which equals jobs and overall tax revenue growth).

Suggest you read Hazlett's "Economics in One Lesson"; it will clear up that fog, DogDude.

Location based?

[wiedzmin]

So, how does that work? They charge you a tax based on what your billing address, your shipping address, your IP geolocation? I wonder if there is a business opportunity in offering re-shipping services out of states with no Amazon tax for Amazon customers...

Re:Location based?

[Lunix Nutcase]

It's based off the address you give them.

Re:Location based?

[beltsbear]

As most orders billing and shipping will be the same state. I am sure that if EITHER address is TX you will get sales tax.

Re:Location based?

[Desler]

So you're gping to pay a middleman and double shipping costs just to save on sales tax? Have fun buying that TV from Amazon and then having to pay your middleman a couple hundred bucks to ship it to you which, along with their fee, will cost more than you would have paid in tax.

Re:Location based?

[wiedzmin]

Doesn't have to be shipping, if you live close enough to the state border you could drive there to pick it up. Canadians living near the border do this all this time to avoid paying customs fees or to get around stupid shipping restrictions (on Amazon Kindles for example). There are services that offer package pick up in US cities along the border.

Re:Location based?

[dodgerfan]

Nope, just the shipping address.

Re:Location based?

[garyoa1]

Not if the closest place is New York. Then you pay NY (8%) tax even tho you don't live there.

Re:Location based?

[Mabhatter]

I never understand why they don't go after credit card companies and other electronic funds places. Your Credit/Debit card company already has to comply with local state rules anyway (as a business presence) and have your legal postal address. That industry takes an even BIGGER profit from all the people avoiding tax online. They would only have to comply with one address per customer... And adding fees is certainly something they are good at.

The biggest problem with the sales tax rules is that EVERY BUSINESS could have to support EVERY SALES TAX in the country. That is hundreds of separate amounts based on residence alone and more based on "type of merchandise"... Not to mention they would have to be LICENSED to collect that tax... I don't think even the tax collectors thought through the deluge of paperwork from all the Internet businesses in 49 other states they would have to process.

Alternately, we could have the Post Office collect the sales tax... They need something to do!

Re:Location based?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, you're right! If there's any situation where a statement doesn't apply, then the statemenet is no longer of value. And since the Canadian border is pretty much just New York, clearly weidzmin's statement that Canadians do this all the time is invalid.

Oh, wait, New York is only a very small portion of the US-Canada border.

Re:Location based?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how does that work? They charge you a tax based on what your billing address, your shipping address, your IP geolocation? I wonder if there is a business opportunity in offering re-shipping services out of states with no Amazon tax for Amazon customers...

Other companies have no problem charging sales taxes for online purchases. It's a solved problem.

Re:Location based?

[DerekLyons]

Those services work for Canadians because 80% of all Canadians live withing fifty odd miles of the border, and 80% of those live in a fairly small number of metropolitan areas. There's no similar situation in the US.

Re:Location based?

[fermion]

Does Amazon charge tax on my order to my Texas adress, paid with my Amazon card funded by an offshore billing address and physical address? Does amazon charge tax on my order billed to a place other than Texas, but shipped to Texas. Does Amazon charge double tax if I live in Texas and send a gift sent to Nevada. This tax thing is a boondoggle to get more money out of the middle class while living the upper class free to complain that they pay all the taxes, while have the opportunity to make many of those taxes optional. This was the one thing the middle class had. Rather than fixing a regressive system, they made it more regressive(many analysis have shown that as a percentage of wealth, the middle class does pay greater taxes, this just makes it worse).

Re:Location based?

[sco08y]

So, how does that work? They charge you a tax based on what your billing address, your shipping address, your IP geolocation? I wonder if there is a business opportunity in offering re-shipping services out of states with no Amazon tax for Amazon customers...

You're almost getting to the actual problem.

The reality is that brick and mortar stores use local services, local police protection, local roads, etc. and so they pay the local taxes. Most local taxes work (that is, people are amenable to them) because they are pretty close approximations of user fees, and because the citizens nearby find the government accessible and relevant to them.

Amazon's model dispenses with most of the physical presence. They're accomplishing the same end, getting the thing from point A to point B, but without a big brick and mortar building and all the associated expense. They're only getting a fraction of those services that the brick and mortar store is getting because they only *need* a fraction of those services.

The reason this doesn't work is because it penalizes the efficient, nimble competitor in favor of the big bloated obsolete business model. The established stores are using the government to wipe out their competitor's marketplace advantage.

Re:Location based?

[riverat1]

There should be an online sales tax clearing house. The online vendor sends it the shipping address, the item being purchased and the amount and the clearing house returns the amount of sales tax due. The vendor then sends the total sales tax owed to the clearing house once a month which distributes it to the various taxing authorities that are owed. It's all paid for by skimming a bit off of the money passing through the clearing house.

Re:Location based?

[ConfusedVorlon]

yup - works fine for Europe.

If you're moderately big and you sell to Europe, then you charge vat based on the country of the person you are shipping to.
Physical goods and electronic goods (like app stores) deal with this just fine. It's a pain, but it only kicks in when your business is big enough to deal with it (otherwise you don't have to register for VAT)

re figuring out where you are from; That's easy. Most of the time, your credit card won't work unless you provide the correct billing address. This doesn't need to be correct 100% of the time - it just needs to mostly collect the right sales tax and send that to the state governments.

there might be a small opportunity in re-shipping, but it is going to be pretty small. It only applies where

%tax differential between states * cost of goods > cost of re-shipping + profit for re-shipping company + saving to make it worthwhile for the additional hassle/delay

Re:Location based?

[bdabautcb]

It's called South Dakota.

Why?

[Black Parrot]

Doesn't this violate the US Constitution?

Or are they arguing that Amazon "has a presence" in Texas?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or are they arguing that Amazon "has a presence" in Texas?

Originally they argued that Amazon having a distribution center in the state counted as a "presence".

Re:Why?

[cpu6502]

It doesn't violate anything if the corporation Volunteers to collect the use tax. The state government can not force non-residents to comply, but it can politely ask, and apparently amazon said "okay".

Re:Why?

[gnick]

A distribution center isn't a business? Or are they distributing without charge or paid employees from public lands?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon has a presence in virtually every state thru affiliates who have web pages and get a commission when they send someone to Amazon and they buy something. Trouble is, when they start to collect taxes in that state they cut off their affiliates and they don't get any more commissions. Of course what the hell do the politicians care about the little people?

Re:Why?

[Grishnakh]

This changes the whole equation: if Amazon has a distribution center in TX, then that certainly counts as a "physical presence", and the way I understand it obligates a mail-order seller to collect sales tax. The way most mail-order sellers get out of it is that they really don't have any physical presence: none at all, including no "affiliates", or distribution centers owned by a shell company or other such legal trickery. Most sellers are based in one state only, so that's the only state they collect sales tax in, and the others can't force them to collect since that's a violation of interstate commerce.

I wonder if Amazon has worked out deals in some states to be tax-free in exchange for located a distro center there. I'm in Arizona and my Amazon purchases are tax-free, yet they have a distro center on the other side of town from me. I'm not sure how they do it, but I'm guessing there's some kind of special deal at work there.

Re:Why?

[doktor-hladnjak]

These Amazon distribution centers are operated by wholly owned subsidiaries. Amazon claims that it's not their sales business that has a business presence there, but rather the subsidiaries which are technically separate companies that just happen to be owned by Amazon.

Re:Why?

[jimmydevice]

I believe Amazon purchased Woot, which is located in Texas.
This also explains Woot's decline.

Re:Why?

[icebraining]

It seems Amazon is planing to expand to Texas (creating 2500 jobs, according to TFA), so they'd have to play ball anyway.

Re:Why?

[Glendale2x]

Same here in Nevada. They have a huge warehouse 25 miles up the road and yet no sales tax on purchases. Whenever I buy from any other company online that has any presence in Nevada they always charge me sales tax. Amazon has been the exception, not the rule. I do enjoy the free super saver next day shipping though.

Re:Why?

[yakovlev]

Basically, Amazon formed a wholly owned subsidiary to run the shipping business in Texas. They then argued that while the subsidiary had a presence in Texas, Amazon didn't.

From the way it was reported, it seemed Amazon was fairly clearly in the wrong, but Rick Perry (for better or worse) stepped in when Amazon threatened to close down the distribution center if Texas made them pay sales tax.

I think Texas and Amazon worked out a deal where Amazon would pay sales tax "after a while" and this is probably that deal coming to fruition.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

yea its under the section about internet tax evasion dumass

Re:Why?

[lightknight]

Because the US Constitution can't defend itself (it's a piece of paper)? In order for the Constitution to be protected, 50% + 1 of those under its hypothetical sway must want to defend it, and the various organs contained within. If more than that say to hell with it, we will do as we please, it has no capacity to rectify things.

It survives because it's a useful tool for indoctrination. Some people will go their entire lives believing the US Constitution has never not been upheld. Many others will call upon the rights and privileges contained therein in their hour of need, and find it was all an illusion (usually about the same time their right to vote, and thus change the system, has been removed). Some realize, early on, that it's all smoke and mirrors, and that it's all rule of law; act like what you're doing is Constitutional, and people will believe it, especially if they think it serves their own self-interests. Because of the confusion surrounding whether or the US Constitution is being upheld, and with the more liberal (read: open, generous) readings of it by one Supreme Court, your rulers act as they please.

Re:Why?

[lightknight]

Do they contribute to said politicians' election campaigns?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Nevada has an independent mindset. Here in Texas the republicans tow the party line so much they forget to think. they'll start lubing up as soon as they get the general impression that it's time to bend over and take it from the (R) again. They're doing it for Gawd and 'Merka because their priesthood can do no wrong.

I'm in Texas and have already gotten charged tax

[honestmonkey]

It was for a few short stories on Kindle. They cost me $1.07, instead of the $0.99 that was listed. I just assumed they were already charging tax. I haven't gotten charged tax on physical items yet, though.

summary

[Anonymous Coward]

amazon wanted to expand operations in texas

texas went after them for sales taxes

amazon threatened to expand elsewhere instead

the two sides negotiate

texas gives amnesty for past sales taxes

amazon agrees to continue texas expansion and to start collecting and paying state sales tax (as a result of their new physical presence in the state)

____

states could all get around the whole physical presence thing by passing the the same (or similar) law that new york did, defining affiliates/marketers as a physical presence. if ALL states did it, then the retailers would just give-in and start collecting the taxes instead of terminating affiliate and marketing agreements in affected states.

Re:summary

[Grishnakh]

I don't really understand why they're doing this. This deal seems rather short-sighted: charging TX customers sales tax is going to reduce their revenues (and profits), since some customers will switch to other online sellers that don't charge sales tax. Why not stay out of Texas altogether, and build their distribution center in a much smaller state like Oklahoma? Texas is a huge, heavily populated state with tons of potential customers. Oklahoma and Arkansas are much smaller, but right next door, and very centrally located in the country. If they have to charge customers sales tax anywhere (which will mean a hit on the number of customers in that state), why not go to the most unpopulated but strategically-located state?

Re:summary

[shutdown -p now]

Most likely they believe that writing is on the wall with respect to some form of national sales tax, or at least some arrangement by the Congress that actually permits the states to collect those taxes for out-of-state purchases.

Well, a good reason to use other sites...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

is all that is. As for Texas being against taxes, well, the state is about 24.6 billion or so in debt under the ever amusing "conservative" governor Perry. So make no mistake about it. Governor Perry is against taxes, but he seems to be OK with authorizing *spending* whether there's tax revenue to cover it or not.

Re:Well, a good reason to use other sites...

[the eric conspiracy]

Texas does have one of the lowest per capita state debts, being 45th or so.

It also has an absolutely rubbish education system (49th in verbal SAT) and the largest percentage of minimum wage workers in the US. These crappy jobs of course don't offer health care coverage as often as better paying jobs. The unemployment rate is right at the national average at 8.2%.

While it does lead the nation in job growth, it is also leading the nation in population growth.

And that's despite being wealthy in natural resources like oil.

Re:Well, a good reason to use other sites...

[Anonymous Coward]

It also has an absolutely rubbish education system

Honestly, I can't think of a state that doesn't. And as long as people continue to think that rote memorization and teaching to the test is learning, that will never change.

Re:Well, a good reason to use other sites...

[the eric conspiracy]

> Hint: It's the hispanics and their anchor babies that increasing the population growth. Learn Spanish.

Nah. People are moving to Texas from all over the US.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/06/migration

Re:Well, a good reason to use other sites...

[endeitzslash]

I live in Austin. Texas is a great place to live if you are upper middle class. Sucks if you are poor. The social safety net is substandard, and if you can't afford to move your kids out of lousy school districts (or send them to private school) then the education is also substandard.

Why do so many low wage earners stay in Texas? Maybe they can't afford to move.

Ed.

Re:Well, a good reason to use other sites...

[Chaos Incarnate]

Using a singular SAT test's rank to say their education system is rubbish is disingenuous at best. If you rank the states, somebody's got to come in 50th. They could still be only a point or five south of #1—not a significant difference—and still come in last, but that doesn't mean their scores are "rubbish".

Re:Well, a good reason to use other sites...

[lightknight]

Which reminds me. Is the SAT administered in other languages than English?

I mean, seeing how Texas is a border state...

Re:Well, a good reason to use other sites...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up the "Two Santa Claus Theory". Republicans have been using it since Reagan, rather consistently. See, Democrats (and unions) brought us child labor laws, 40 hour work weeks, actual days off, overtime pay, Social Security, and the beginnings of a national health care system AND they did this without ruining the budget as taxes on the rich and corporations were high during arguably the most prosperous time in our country's history. People who weren't millionaires and billionaires liked this.

So Republicans see this and realize they have a problem, because their whole platform is anti-worker and anti-middle class, but they still have to dupe idiots into voting for them. So aside from going after the Southern racist crowd (one of Nixon's ideas) one of their strategists came up with this one: whenever Republicans are in power, they spend money like drunken sailors at a strip club and run up the debt as high as they can. This makes the economy look good for a while and it makes their bankster friends more money. This pretty much sums up the Reagan and both Bush administrations, especially the last one. Then, when Democrats get into office they start screaming about the debt (sound familiar?) and claim there's no money for any of the programs they want to pass--which there isn't because the Republicans spent it all. This forces Democrats to be the fiscally responsible ones whether they want to or not and makes people less likely to think they've done anything for them. It's designed to associate Republican administrations with good times and Democrats with budget cuts and bill paying, while at the same time trying to blame all the spending on Democrats. Look at Obama's first year, when they tried to accuse him of running up the debt in the first few months of his administration. Did ANY of the corporate media point out in any significant way that since the President is sworn in during January and the fiscal year starts in October that every new president has essentially a year of the previous President's budget and spending priorities? Did you hear about the debt in any kind of serious manner while Bush was in office? See how this works?

That's what they do, it's what they've done, and way too many people fall for it. Don't think for a minute that Republicans can't write a budget--they know exactly what they're doing behind that good ole boy "aww, shucks" public face a lot of them favor.

Re:Well, a good reason to use other sites...

[Anonymous Coward]

The quoted poster is absolutely correct. Proximity to the border is the problem and skews the quoted statistics.

49th stacking in SAT verbal is due to the fact the test isn't administered in Spanish.

This is the same reason for the state's overall debt; supporting millions of illegals' education, health care, handouts, and penal matters is expensive. This population doesn't give back to the state in taxes.

Re:Lost an amazon customer

[Desler]

You would only pay this if you lived in Texas...

Fair?

[wisnoskij]

How can they just collect taxes from one online store and leave the other million alone?
Seems like a unfair advantage and completely illegal to boot.

Re:Fair?

[tthomas48]

Walmart, BestBuy, Target, Dell, etc. All pay taxes in Texas. Amazon has been a bit off a scofflaw for many years now.

Re:Fair?

[mybecq]

How can they just collect taxes from one online store and leave the other million alone?

Learn about Tax Nexus and you'll have your answer.

Re:Fair?

[Grishnakh]

No, it's not illegal or unfair. Maybe you should go read the Constitution. States aren't allowed to charge taxes to companies that don't operate within their borders (shipping items to citizens inside doesn't count). If a mail-order company has no physical presence within the state, then that state can't force them to charge taxes. Instead, the state needs to go after its own citizens who aren't paying the "use tax" when they buy products from out-of-state.

Amazon, it seems, has a physical presence there now (some kind of distribution center), so that obligates them to collect the tax. Ma-n-Pa's Online Doodad Shop in Bumblefuck, Maine doesn't have a physical presence there, so they don't have to collect taxes (no do Ma-n-Pa have the resources to calculate sales taxes for the tens of thousands of different jurisdictions across the country, since sales taxes vary by zipcode).

Re:Fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

GP talked about online stores, not B&M stores or online stores with a B&M presence in the state. The difference is, Walmart, BestBuy, Target, and Dell all have a physical brick and mortar presence in Texas, and collect and pay taxes in Texas because of that. Amazon doesn't.

Re:Fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea is the Internet (A non-physical "property" shouldn't be taxed.) Physical building on land can and should taxed by the state. I tax on "The Internet" is a tax on the people.

Re:Lost an amazon customer

[Anonymous Coward]

You idiot, you only get charged TX sales tax if either your billing or shipping address is in TX. There's nothing foreign about it, but nice strawman.

Re:Lost an amazon customer

[Anonymous Coward]

We got ourselves a class A retard here. Did you even read the first sentence? It clearly says 'collecting sales tax from buyers in Texas'. If you live in Texas it is not a 'foreign government'. Secondly, your catch phrase has no legal weight. It is just tat, a catch phrase.

Good thing I don't live in Texas

[rossdee]

Does Amazon have operations on the ground in Texas?

The other States that they have started collecting sales tax for have all been where they have warehouses etc. (Indiana was mentioned a couple of months ago.

This could create business opportunities for online retailers based in states that don't have sales tax. (like Montana)

Re:Good thing I don't live in Texas

[JazzHarper]

Does Amazon have operations on the ground in Texas?

Yes, they do.

Also, California, Florida, Missouri, New Jersey, Virginia and Washington, of course. That's as of four years ago. Probably more, now.

Re:Good thing I don't live in Texas

[NJRoadfan]

Amazon currently doesn't have a NJ warehouse and doesn't charge sales tax. Thats likely to change soon and Amazon is trying to get a sales tax holiday http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2012/03/if_nj_legislature_doesnt_amazo.html

Re:Good thing I don't live in Texas

[painandgreed]

Does Amazon have operations on the ground in Texas?

Depends one what you mean by "Amazon" and what you mean by "operations". The companies are saying they don't while the states are trying to argue that they do, sometimes including rewriting laws. In this case, IIRC, Amazon, the main company is not in Texas, but it does own a distribution company that ships stuff people buy from Amazon, although the distribution company buys and sells nothing, just provides a service. In the case of CA and NY, it was a matter of the states rewriting laws so that if Amazon even hired a company to do any contract work that had an office in those states, or sold services to anybody in those states, then Amazon was considered to have a presence and was then required to collect taxes on all their sales in those states.

Re:Good thing I don't live in Texas

[Maestro4k]

Also Tennessee, they managed to get some kind of arrangement with the previous governor that allows them to not collect sales tax (yet anyway, I don't know if it's only for a specific time period or indefinite). The current idiot of a governor was making a lot of noise about this last year trying to have the state renege on the agreement. Even if you disagree with the previous governor giving Amazon a waiver on collecting sales tax to get them to build a distribution center in the state it's insane stupidity to announce to the business world at large that Tennessee doesn't honor its agreements. He didn't get his way (beyond making noise and being an idiot), but I suspect we still won't be seeing any more large businesses consider building anything here in the future either. At least not until our current governor's out of office.

Re:Good thing I don't live in Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

No sales tax is charged in Florida

Tax Cuts = Job creation...right!!?

[supaneko]

Don't you remember? When the government cuts taxes for corporations, they (the corporations) create teh jobz!!

Argh.

[Zorque]

Sales tax is an assault on the poor (and to a lesser extent the middle class), and I've been pretty upset to see it encroaching on the internet. I've always thought we should restrict sales tax to "luxury" items like furniture, electronics and so on.

Although I guess that's largely the type of thing Amazon carries, so maybe I shouldn't be so worked up about it after all.

Re:Argh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always thought we should restrict sales tax to "luxury" items like furniture, electronics and so on.

Why?

Your company makes money, it's taxed. They pay you, it's taxed again - purportedly for your retirement and medical benefits, of course, but pillaged nonetheless. You receive it, and it's taxed yet again. How does it make any fucking sense, whatsoever, to then tax it again when you freaking buy something?

We're a few Republicat or Democan presidolts away from the ability to make a living being removed entirely. By 2030, citizens of the US will simply get a weekly allowance from our governmental parents, no doubt.

Re:Argh.

[cduffy]

Texas doesn't have state income tax -- so property tax and sales tax are all that there is for revenue here. As such, either of those being dodged is not so great.

Re:Argh.

[Anonymous Coward]

you think furniture and electronics are luxuries? are you from somalia?

Re:Argh.

[Zorque]

Haha, I should have elaborated that we should eliminate sales tax entirely, but if we must have it then it should be restricted to things that aren't absolute essentials. I agree with you on that front.

Re:Argh.

[misexistentialist]

Hard to dodge property tax so sales tax is still redundant. Oh, that's right, GW Bush would have to pay more on his ranch...guess squeezing out more sales tax on diapers from Amazon is where it's at.

Re:Argh.

[mxharlow]

The statement "Your company makes money, it's taxed. They pay you, it's taxed again" isn't exactly correct. Generally, for federal income tax purposes companies are only taxes once on this money in the form of a payroll tax. They are allowed a deduction against gross income the amount they pay in payroll and thus escape income taxation on payroll expenses pursuant to 26 USC 62(a)(1). Of course shareholder distributions, dividends and loans to employees do not receive the deduction.

Re:Argh.

[shutdown -p now]

If you have a problem with sales tax (and I largely agree with you on that), it is something that should be resolved by normal means, i.e. legislature. Preferably that of the individual states. Companies, on the other hand, should comply with the (constitutional) laws on the books. If a law says that Amazon is responsible for collecting the sales tax for Texas residents, and if that requirement is valid - as it seems to be, since they do have a presence in Texas - then they should just do it. It's up to the citizens of the State of Texas to determine whether they should or should not have a sales tax.

Re:Argh.

[Zorque]

Well, sure. I didn't mean they should break the law, just that the law should be changed.

Re:Argh.

[tgd]

Sales tax is an assault on the poor (and to a lesser extent the middle class), and I've been pretty upset to see it encroaching on the internet. I've always thought we should restrict sales tax to "luxury" items like furniture, electronics and so on.

Although I guess that's largely the type of thing Amazon carries, so maybe I shouldn't be so worked up about it after all.

If someone is so poor as to "deserve" not pay their share of maintaining the infrastructure they use, what are they buying from Amazon?

Re:Argh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about other states, but in Texas, there is no tax on essentials. Fresh food, for example, does not have a sales tax imposed. Nor is there sales tax on buying a house.

Re:Argh.

[Grishnakh]

Poor people buy electronics too. This isn't the middle ages, when "poor" meant barely surviving, though being poor in the USA is still a bad experience because it usually means you have very little access to proper medical care, especially if you have any chronic conditions. Electronics are much cheaper than medical care.

Also importantly, poor people need access to technology so they can better their conditions. Young poor people who buy computers, for instance, and learn about them can move into much better-paying jobs with that experience. They're not going to get out of the poverty trap if all society does for them is give them some crappy food. So sales tax really is an assault on the poor. Sure, they could spend their money on video games or whatever, but even that can lead to better, more productive employment later on.

Finally, it's all the poor and middle-class people buying gadgets and stuff that makes the economy run. Sales taxes put a damper on that. At least with income taxes, those are usually progressive so that poorer people pay little to none, and can spend everything they earn (thus making the economy grow); but sales taxes are never progressive, except for instances where particular items (food) are exempted, as there's no way for a checkout clerk to find out what your income is and tax you accordingly (and that'd be a massive breach of privacy if they did implement a system to do that).

I'm starting to think the states that have no sales tax, and only income tax, are probably doing it right. Oregon is the only state I can think of like this.

Re:Argh.

[Zorque]

I really only put "luxury" in quotes to mean items that aren't absolutely essential, I still don't think there should be any but I imagine abolishing it entirely is going to be a hard battle and the first step will be removing it from items like food and medication (it's disgusting to me that even prescriptions aren't exempt from sales tax in most US jurisdictions).

Income tax is the way to go in my mind, too.

Re:Argh.

[Zorque]

You sound as though you think the lower classes don't pay taxes. It's not that they're not paying their share (they are), they're not making their share especially considering the difficult and manual nature of many low-paying jobs. Sales tax forces even the homeless to pay as much for their goods as the richest among us and it's shameful.

Re:Argh.

[tgd]

You sound as though you think the lower classes don't pay taxes. It's not that they're not paying their share (they are), they're not making their share especially considering the difficult and manual nature of many low-paying jobs. Sales tax forces even the homeless to pay as much for their goods as the richest among us and it's shameful.

Shameful in your opinion. I, on the other hand, think its shameful to take from the efforts of one person to make up for the lack of efforts of another.

Good!

[DogDude]

Like the subject says: good! Hopefully, more states will continue to do the same. I'm really tired of seeing of people gleefully dodging sales tax.

Re:Good!

[spiffmastercow]

Like the subject says: good! Hopefully, more states will continue to do the same. I'm really tired of seeing of people gleefully dodging sales tax.

Really? It's the only tax I don't mind people dodging, because it's the only (major) tax that hurts you more the less you make.

Re:Lost an amazon customer

[cpu6502]

Ooops..... never mind. I am not Texan and have nothing to worry about. (For now.)

A New Money Scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

So if they start taxing it by billing address, some enterprising person should start a credit card company in the "Isle of Man" that sells credit cards with billing addresses there. Then charge a nominal fee of, for example, $1/month to have the card so that you don't ever pay the sales tax. Hmm...

Re:A New Money Scheme

[mxharlow]

Exactly why it could never work as designed by using a billing address! A common example in this debate is a person who buys a product online as a gift in a state which does not have nexus with the retailer. He or she then has it shipped to a state which does have nexus. The sales tax applies in this case because of the sales tax and use tax unification.

Excellent

[LordNimon]

I live in Texas, and I shop at Amazon a lot (I even have Prime membership). I'm glad that that Amazon will be charging sales tax now. I'm happy to pay it, because I know it will help my state. I know, I could have reported the sales tax myself, but it's not the same thing. It only has value if everyone pays the tax. Amazon's prices and free shipping are already cheaper than most local retailers, so I don't think Amazon will suffer any.

Re:Excellent

[DigiShaman]

I live in Houston. Sales tax is different depending on what city you live in. What's to prevent the Texas, or any state for that matter, telling Amazing to collect texas based on the local sales rate of your resident. Or is that already happening? If not, there will be a lot of fights among cities as to who gets what percentage of the sales taxes collected by Amazon on the states government's behalf.

Re:Excellent

[shutdown -p now]

Given that Amazon is liable to collect sales tax because they have physical presence in the state, it would be logical to use the tax rate corresponding to the location of those facilities which constitute said presence, and to distribute them as if the item were sold at that location (i.e. the city where Amazon his, is the one that's going to get the remainder after the state takes its due).

Re:Excellent

[mxharlow]

You're no alone in your opinion! The right thing to do is the right thing to do, if everyone does the right thing to do. If not, the right thing to do is not the right thing to do, and I will not do the wrong thing to do.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble is this doesn't help the state, it only takes money from poor people, any raise in tax revenue in texas immediately goes to lowering taxes for the rich and helping Susan Combs' friends at the state capital.

Re:Excellent

[LordNimon]

I never understood the complaint that figuring out the actual tax value is too hard. Hello, we have computers! It can't be that hard to figure out the sales tax information for any address in the U.S. I'm sure many companies already provide that service, and Amazon can afford it.

Pennsylvania is making them collect next year

[danbuter]

Starting next year, Amazon will have to collect Pennsylvania state sales tax, as well. The state politicians have been pushing for this for several years, in fact. Amazon was given a reprieve to allow them to set up their system, but it looks like they will have to collect starting next year.

Re:Pennsylvania is making them collect next year

[lightknight]

Right. Out of that state then.

There is just something so unclean about taxes.

I'm entirely OK with this.

[aoeu]

Why not let bricks compete against the cloud on an even footing? Amazon et al do not need this advantage anymore and ebay has no reason to market itself as a tax avoidance scheme.

Re:I'm entirely OK with this.

[gl4ss]

yeah if you could dodge sales tax by being "online" - and if that made officially legit, then you wouldn't soon be buying anything but "online" items.

it's no wonder amazon has made such a nice business in the usa by being able to undercut prices by dodging the sales tax for so many years. it's a sale so why shouldn't it be paid? in either the receiving party's end or at the shipping party's end... what's _really_ fucked up is that usa hasn't really addressed this issue on national scale at all, even the eu has a saner VAT system, vat is included on the price shown to consumer and if you order online you pay the vat for the sending sending area - and if/when you pay that you don't need to pay the vat for your home area, this bolsters inside eu trade and customs+vat makes it less feasible to order expensive items abroad just to dodge tax. just shows how frozen the system is when it comes to handling everyday real issues.

the whole way how sales tax is handled in usa is fucked up though, it's a national level bait'n'switch scam basically to screw customers into not seeing right away what an item will cost to them.
from american dad
"- One of your items, please. - How about this cassette?
- Is it 99 cents? - It's $1.07 with tax.
- You ever think about changing the sign? - It's not really up to me.
"

Good.

[RightSaidFred99]

I have to pay taxes anyway. Arizona makes you state explicitly that you didn't buy any shit on the Internet without paying taxes, so I'd be lying on my taxes which is pretty serious shit. They are more likely to audit you based on your income and some heuristics if you say no, so I had to go to Amazon and do a report to find out how much I owed and declare it on my taxes.

So if the fuckers are going to make me pay taxes, at least make it easier than that bullshit.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm not sure what state has the excess resources to do all of the digging to show all the places you bought stuff online *and* which wasn't a gift for someone else. I'm pretty sure most states don't have the manpower to conduct such an investigation for, what, a maybe $1000 return on the investment?

The use tax is on-par with the Lottery in being a tax on people who are bad at statistics.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm not sure what state has the excess resources to do all of the digging to show all the places you bought stuff online *and* which wasn't a gift for someone else. I'm pretty sure most states don't have the manpower to conduct such an investigation for, what, a maybe $1000 return on the investment?

The use tax is on-par with the Lottery in being a tax on people who are bad at statistics.

Nice thinking there mate. You're effectively advocating for tax evasion.

Re:Good.

[gl4ss]

Well, I'm not sure what state has the excess resources to do all of the digging to show all the places you bought stuff online *and* which wasn't a gift for someone else. I'm pretty sure most states don't have the manpower to conduct such an investigation for, what, a maybe $1000 return on the investment?

The use tax is on-par with the Lottery in being a tax on people who are bad at statistics.

wait, what? you don't pay sales tax on gifts? I'm pretty sure that whoever _paid_ for that gift had to pay sales tax on it.

i cheat

[Anonymous Coward]

on any and every tax i can - govt at all levels is an insipid, inefficient steward of my money

Note to uneducated repubs

[happyhamster]

How about getting a little economic education instead of chanting idiotic repub slogans? If you think about it, the slogan is meaningless. Modern economy runs on credit. Everyone "spends more money than they have," businesses, families, and yes, governments. It increases economic activity and improves growth. You borrow in bad times or for large items, pay off gradually in good times.

Re:Note to uneducated repubs

[misexistentialist]

Until you can't afford to pay even the interest in the good times...

Re:Note to uneducated repubs

[akboss]

Everyone "spends more money than they have," businesses, families, and yes, governments.

I dont spend what I dont have. So not everyone does this. If I dont have the money to buy another horse , well then I dont buy one. If I dont have the money to buy a (or take out a loan) car then I wait until I can afford it. Some of us just happen to be responsible when it comes to money. Others are not so smart and they are the ones always crying that they need another handout.

Re:Note to uneducated repubs

[zippthorne]

People are entirely different creatures than governments.

A person has limited lifespan, and an even smaller span of productivity in the middle, yet a person requires resources to live during the periods where that person cannot produce them. Clearly the answer is for a person to live on the efforts of others in the beginning - debt, then produce in excess of his needs in the middle - credit, then live off the efforts of others at then end, and that's not even including stretches of unemployment in the middle.

A person can only hold so many jobs, and in bad times can lose all of them. The income variability is very high for a person, so it makes sense to bridge the gaps with savings or debt, and a person has capital needs as well as ongoing maintenance needs - a person needs shelter. Currently, debt offers a way to turn an impossible capital expenditure into a long-term recurring payment within the immediate means of a person throughout their career.

A nation, on the other hand, just doesn't have the same income variation. In a depression, many become unemployed, but still most remain employed - going from 4% unemployment to 8% doubles the unemployment, but the total employment will have only dropped by 4.2% Although debt can be used to smooth out the income variation, there isn't that much that needs to be smoothed. Total deficit spending should not exceed the variance in employment if smoothing is the goal, and further, a government must not also run a deficit during the good times for this model to work.

But just as a government's income is by its nature spread out, so too are its expenses. A bridge might take years to build, depending on the span. Although the funds must be committed at the start of construction, there is no reason why they cannot be paid out as the work is completed, matching the continuous stream of income. Debt is not needed to spread out the expense, just pay along as you go along.

You might argue that a bridge benefits society for 50 years, but only takes 5 to build, so shouldn't we use debt to spread out the cost of the bridge's construction over its useful lifespan? This kind of thing makes sense for a business or a person, as it frees up capital and income for other purposes, but makes little sense when you apply it to the scale of a government. The government is already operating at levels that are within the same order of magnitude as the whole economic output.

It doesn't matter how much you borrow, it is only possible to build so many bridges in any given five year span, and every bridge you build occupies the resources of the economy that it requires for the duration of its construction. You might as well be honest about tax the rest of the economy by the proportion actually directed by the government. If government spends 20% of the economic output of the economy, that value is extracted from those that produce it somehow, and it is extracted as it is used. Either directly through taxes, or indirectly through inflation.

Re:Note to uneducated repubs

[lightknight]

Sad, but true.

One less benefit

[craigminah]

of buying from Amazon is the lack of sales tax. Will they rack up another $34B in annual sales if everyone (for now just Texas but it will spread) must pay sales tax? What do the states plan to squander the money on anyways...

Re:One less benefit

[Anonymous Coward]

People that don't pay sales tax (but should) are committing tax evasion. It's irrelevant wether you buy online or not. If you live in a state that enforces sales tax then you must pay. Why up to now it has always been an honour based system just baffles the mind. People being people, if you give them a loophole for something illegal they'll take it hook and sinker. But make no mistake, if you're required to declare sales tax and don't do it (because nobody enforces it) you're still on the wrong side of the law. The states are just closing that loophole. Instead of relying on the honesty of citizens (we all know how well that works when talking about paying taxes) they go directly to the problem. The merchant that enforces sales tax.

Re:One less benefit

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. Constitution says that states may not tax imports unless (a) they have the consent of Congress, and (b) the net Proceeds of such taxes, after inspection costs, go into the Federal Treasury. The Constitution also says that it takes priority over state laws, and even state Constitutions.

As far as I know, "use taxes" (a.k.a. sales taxes on interstate sales, a.k.a. import taxes) are NOT approved by the Congress, and their proceeds do NOT go into the Federal Treasury. (If the states didn't get the proceeds, they wouldn't be so interested in these taxes.) So it looks like the states are collecting money from us that they are explicitly prohibited from collecting. Why doesn't the Congress or the Supreme Court do something about that?

The real problem...

[Targon]

...is that local, state, and federal governments are so bad about how money is spent, they are focused on taxes and running deficits as a result. Government employees are generally paid at least as well, if not better than the same job would pay in the private sector, yet the compensation package also includes far more days off per year, PLUS a pension and better than normal insurance benefits. As a result of all of this, tax revenues just can't bring in enough money to pay for all of this. So, what do the idiots in politics do, they start taxing more and more things, and you end up in the situation we are in here.

My way of looking at it is that if government employees SACRIFICE, get paid less, get worse benefits, that is the only time they deserve a pension. If they get paid like those in the private sector, they should be forced to save up or live on Social Security the way those in the private sector currently do. If they get paid MORE than those in the private sector do, they should get less in terms of benefits while on the job. Make compensation be fair and balanced, but politicians are fairly clueless in this regard. I don't see those working for the government doing a true service to the people they supposedly serve, so why should they get extra benefits?

Re:The real problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

I took a 30% pay cut (more like 35% counting bonuses) to go from the private sector to government and the vacation and health care benefits are not as good. More interesting work, less pressure to work unpaid hours, and fewer ethically dodgy tasks make up for it.

Amazon Killer?

[ehiris]

I wonder if this is just an attack by the Texas legislature on Amazon, who they are upset with for beating all local prices which are taxed a billion times over. (building tax, transportation tax, gas tax, sales tax, retails people salary tax, etc....)

Re:Lost an amazon customer

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't worry for the future, either. Judging by your comment history, becoming a Texan is not going to make things any worse for your mental capabilities.

Tennessee

[cashman73]

I live in Tennessee, and I recently got an interesting email this week from amazon.com:

Hello from Amazon.com,

Thank you for being a loyal customer of Amazon.com LLC. We appreciate your business and look forward to continuing to provide you vast selection, low prices, fast delivery and convenience.

As you may know, Amazon.com LLC is not required to collect sales or use taxes in Tennessee. However, the state of Tennessee requires us to provide the following notice to you:

You may owe use tax on purchases you made from Amazon.com LLC during the previous calendar year. The amount of tax you may owe is based on the total sales price of the items you purchased during the calendar year unless an exemption exists under state law or you have already paid the tax. A sale is not exempt under state law because it is made through the Internet. The total sales price of purchases you had shipped to Tennessee in 2011 was $104.78. This is the amount that you may include on your Tennessee use tax return to calculate the appropriate use tax owed unless you have already paid the tax.

As purchases from Amazon.com LLC can be made through various sales channels, we have included directly below your breakdown of purchases from the various channels.

Total sales from www.amazon.com $xxx.xx
Total sales from www.endless.com $0.00
Total sales from www.myhabit.com $0.00
Total sales from www.amazonwireless.com $0.00
Total sales from www.smallparts.com $0.00

In addition, the state of Tennessee requires us to provide you with the following link that you can use to get more information and pay any taxes due:

Use Tax Page: https://apps.tn.gov/usetax Please note the following:

While Amazon.com LLC does not report this information directly to the state of Tennessee we are required to provide this information to you based on Tennessee Code T.C.A. 67-6-5 (f)(3) signed into law March 23, 2012.

This notification has been sent to all customers that had purchases delivered to Tennessee. If you are not a resident of Tennessee, the most common reason for receiving this notification is that you may have sent a gift to a recipient in the state.

For more information you may also view our Tennessee Use Tax Notification Page at:

www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200909330

Sincerely,
Customer Service

Re:Tennessee

[Osgeld]

yea I got it, promptly trashed it, not out of spite, just the fact I haven't bought anything from amazon in a couple years

Re: (Taxes on Legal Services)

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the stuff that the rich buy in larger proportioins than the poor (legal and financial services for example) are not taxed, at least not in Texas which has a high sales tax.

Interesting. Assuming that at least 50% of the value of Texas state government benefits lawyers, then the logical and fair solution would seem to be to tax legal services to the point they produced 50% of the state revenue.

WHO PAYS

[glorybe]

Amazon won't pay a penny. The customers will be the ones paying. I won't shop at Amazon even though I don't live in Texas. Texas and Florida are welded at the hip. Trash ideas adopted in Texas will auto spread to Florida faster then Herpes in a high school.

Re:WHO PAYS

[Osgeld]

oh boo fucking hoo, go spend your gas, time and more money to get it at walmart and then pay a sales tax, that will show them

Won't help retail stores

[Maxo-Texas]

Say I drive 10 miles to and 10 miles back from a retail store.

I just paid a 30 minute tax on my time, a $4 tax in gasoline, a 20 mile tax of usage on my car. Plus- the product I want is not in stock sometimes.

Likewise, the 5 retail stores in my town are all stocking 2 units each. As a town, we buy 6 of them and 4 go unsold. Each store has at least 2 employees.

Amazon stocks at most 6 and probably stocks less and uses direct shipment from the vendor to the customer. They use 1 employee to service a hundred different "stores" a day and have robots to pull the items they do stock in their warehouses.

so their inventory costs are lower, their labor costs are lower.

Retail business for a lot of items just doesn't make sense any more.

No ones fault. And in general the customers should benefit from lower costs.

Problem... if you can't find a job, it doesn't matter how cheap things are.

too thick, the irony

[Anonymous Coward]

The rhetoric in Texas changed so fast, it was absurd:

We don't care about sales tax from Amazon! We don't even need money from the Federal government, Texas is self-sufficient!
(some months pass)
Uh oh, looks like we won't make our budget this year...
Rick Perry accosts Obama at the airport for money.
We need to raise tuition at our Universities!
We need to collect sales tax from Amazon!

Tax stock trades as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for the fair tax, as long as its applied to the stock market as well.

Seriously, you're buying and selling parts of a company, or other asset such as a bond. That's a sale and it should be taxed like any other sale. In 2008 that was $153 billion per day or un-taxed sales..

Austin thieves

[jdavidb]

Combs has estimated the state loses $600 million a year from untaxed online sales

No, the people get to keep $600 million more of their own money.

I'm Texan, I'm an Amazon Prime customer, and I'm pissed off about this.

adios mon ami,

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh well, I'll just get my 8.25% rebate somewhere else; fare thee well Amazon, I will miss ye.