Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Impending CA Sales Tax Sparks Amazon Buying Frenzy

Posted by Soulskill on from the get-it-while-it's-hot-and-doesn't-support-the-government dept.

New submitter payola writes "On September 15, Amazon will begin adding in sales tax for purchases made in California. This is sparking a buying frenzy among California residents who are rushing to buy consumer electronics and other expensive items on the site before the deadline. Of course, consumers are supposed to pay sales taxes on their online purchases anyway, but few actually do. 'Amazon is not the only Internet merchant affected by the new law. But as the nation's largest online retailer, it has been the main target. More than 200 other out-of-state companies with major business in California may also be on the hook to collect sales taxes on items shipped to the state. The tax revenue from these online sales is being lauded as a win for the debt-ridden state, which estimates it will see an additional $317 million annually as a result; more than $83 million of that is expected to come from Amazon alone.'"

42 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Jerks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I really the only person in the country who doesn't evade taxes?

    1. Re:Jerks by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't avoid taxes when I feel that my money is well spent. But its been a long time since I felt that way.

      Near my small California town, I can count about 20 million spent on the 32nd park in my small town, a roadside beautification project that is far from beautiful, new road signs made by the company that does them for Rodeo Drive (the old road signs were fine), a pedestrian overpass that absolutely nobody uses because its 10x longer than just running across the street, etc.

      Don't even get me started on the Federal governments waste of my tax dollars.

      I can spend my money in way more useful ways than they can, and I'm sure I've created more jobs than the entirety of the government, on every level. Hell, I have at least 4 different delivery people come to my house almost every day.

    2. Re:Jerks by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't avoid taxes when I feel that my money is well spent. But its been a long time since I felt that way.

      Agreed, this is a common issue with most countries. I don't mind paying taxes, but I for damn sure want value for my money.

    3. Re:Jerks by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Biggest problem I have with government is it spends whatever it likes, regardless how much I pay in taxes. Watching it go from $1 trillion debt in 1980 to $16 trillion these days, tells me the act of collecting taxes is largely done to pay interest on the debt, nothing more.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:Jerks by twotacocombo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Biggest problem I have with government is it spends whatever it likes, regardless how much I pay in taxes.

      This. Why should we feel morally compelled to offer up MORE of our hard earned money to a group of people who are completely unable to responsibly handle what we already give them? Even if we turned over our entire yearly incomes and lived off the land, they'd still find a way to utterly piss it all away and we'd be in the same boat. Blaming *us* for the state's financial woes is blaming the victim. The state needs to get its own shit straight before they go pointing the finger at anybody else.

    5. Re:Jerks by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And for those against taxes, how do you think the roads get built and repaired, bridges built, libraries funded, oversight to make sure our water, food, and medical care are safe, even trains and other public transportation (when you need it you appreciate it), fire departments, emergency response, kids educated, streets and roadways cleaned, etc. etc. etc. No taxes - and we will just end up with new fees from other sources.

      I wish they'd spend money on those things. We've had our school budgets cut so far I had to spend $250 on school supplies for my kids room. Real exotic stuff like staplers and marker pens for the white board. I also have to routinely fix school computers as it appears they cut everyone who can fix anything. My wife and I spend time daily in the classroom, because there are too many students and the teachers can't even perform class management, let alone teach them.

      We spend more on education and health care, yet get among the worst results.

      All of the county fire departments and state resources are all isolated now and won't help each other without being paid for the pleasure. Can't wait until the next time we have a huge fire near a county line and everyone on the other side is sitting on their hands, waiting to get paid.

      I live in a wealthy town, yet my roads suck. Most of the roads around here do. 15 miles from the state capital, so it aint like Jerry doesn't see it.

      We cut our library staffs so much, many of them closed or are only open limited hours.

      We're currently spending billions on a high speed rail that starts in the middle of nowhere and ends in the middle of nowhere, which nobody will ride.

      But we spent $400k to put up new rodeo drive quality signs in my town.

      My friend Jerry says he's asking for a tax increase, and if we don't give into it, he'll cut the schools, healthcare and state welfare budgets. I seem to have missed how they're going to cut back on unnecessary spending, like any sane person would do when they're spending more than they're taking in.

      Sounds a lot like extortion to me.

      I'd be Buffet-like and write a check for extra, if they actually put the money to good use. But they don't. If they spent most of it in the areas you mentioned, I'd be all for it. But that stuff is in last place when it comes time to write a check. The politicians know most of us are too stupid to think it through and will just buckle and pay more.

      But if they raise taxes, I'm packed and ready to leave. We already pay high income, sales and property taxes. I'm not getting my moneys worth. Nevada or New Mexico or Oregon are alllll calling...

    6. Re:Jerks by frosty_tsm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't avoid taxes when I feel that my money is well spent.

      Sorry but this is a bit of a cop-out.

      We all want the money to be spent well. We all want to have say in how it's used. But the reality is that sometimes the money is going to be spent on things we don't like (e.g. Iraq or TSA). And people who do like these things don't want money going to, say, ACORN or Planned Parenthood (I'm making some generalizations here). And someone who lives in Northern California might not like that $200 of his taxes are going towards widening a freeway in San Diego. But this is how government (even an efficient and trim one, which CA is not) works.

      If you want to fix government and how it spends your money, get involved. Hold your representatives accountable for how they vote (not what they say in speeches). Don't use the fact that government does many things (some you like, some you don't) as an excuse to skip taxes. Despite what some politicians are saying, tax evasion is NOT patriotic.

    7. Re:Jerks by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And then there's the MTC in the San Francisco Bay Area (funded through sales tax and bridge tolls among other sources) that purchased an entire building in downtown San Francisco and is renovating it to become offices for $170M. It's not clear why they couldn't stay in Oakland where office space is much cheaper than downtown San Francisco. Well, it is clear -- they have unlimited funding since residents are forced to fund them, if they need more money they can just raise tolls and/or taxes.

      http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_21418357/mtcs-san-francisco-office-building-purchase-bridge-tolls
      http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/MTC-project-may-cost-Bay-Area-drivers-more-3822760.php

      When confronted with the fact that their purchase may not have been cost effective, the MTC rep said:

      a San Mateo County supervisor who chairs the commission, insisted that the agency's goal was never to make money - or even necessarily to break even.
      "We're not looking at it as investment per se," Tissier said. "We look at it as moving into your own home."

      That's the problem with government agencies - what incentive do they have to spend money wisely?

    8. Re:Jerks by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't even care that much, so long as I get a say in how it's spent.

      It'd be easy to do. Put a list of projects and costs on the internet and let people vote for them. Top votes win and we keep going down the list until we're out of money. Anyone or any entity that wants to private fund a project can whip out their checkbook.

      Once you fix the unique online identify situation, you've also got all voting online capable.

      Of course, none of this will ever happen. Not because of technology issues, but because polticians take the job for power and the ability to spend other peoples money with impunity. They sure as shoot don't want us voting online, because then everyone would do it and they'd have lots of available information to make their decisions. Politicians like people who do what they're told, when they're told.

      Hell, we aren't even allowed to vote for candidates in the primaries unless we state a party affiliation and then we're only allowed to vote for candidates from that party. The republicans wont even send you a ballot if you ask for it, unless you register republican. They're uncomfortable with non-sheeple independent voters who might upset their preprogrammed apple cart.

    9. Re:Jerks by Keith111 · · Score: 2

      Actually, "getting involved" is one of california's biggest problems. So much of government money is spent placating the stupid californian people whose lives have absolutely no meaning because they are just worthless individuals. That's left with joining groups where the only thing you have to do is sit there and be annoying outside of grocery stores collecting signatures for a handful of people who like wasting taxes on stupid endeavors like putting those bumpy things outside of grocery stores in NEVER-FREEZES socal so that people will have traction in ice (Also apparently so that people in wheelchairs can't get across them since they apparently are nearly impassable if you're in one)

    10. Re:Jerks by Kohath · · Score: 2

      If you already spend your own time and money educating your kids, why not take the next step and home school them? Home schooled kids learn a lot more, and everything happens on your schedule, not the school's.

    11. Re:Jerks by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't even care that much, so long as I get a say in how it's spent.

      It'd be easy to do. Put a list of projects and costs on the internet and let people vote for them. Top votes win and we keep going down the list until we're out of money.

      That is a TERRIBLE idea. We'd have massive statues of dicks and giant pudding-filled swimming pools. You can't trust this shit to the internet and you sure as hell can't trust the wisdom of mob-rule.

    12. Re:Jerks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government doesn't need my money. We are sixteen trillion dollars in debt. Actually, far worse than that. But if you just go off the typical "national debt clock" numbers, it's only sixteen trillion. That's $16,000,000,000,000.00. That's up six trillion from four years ago and up eleven trillion from twelve years ago. Taking a thousand dollars out of my pocket has a real meaningful impact on my life and the life of people I care about. It means very little to my government, who has absolutely no concern for the value of money. They don't need my thousand dollars (or tens of thousands of dollars per year, actually). How do I know they don't need it? Because no matter how much we give them, they spend trillions more that don't actually exist. I don't have the luxury of spending money I don't have, so the money actually means something to me when they take it away. If they don't take it away, they would have no problem just magically inventing that money and throwing it onto the spent pile of "money we'll owe forever".

      The system is broken and "getting involved" will accomplish nothing. It's fixed and its broken and the concept of "participation" is there not so that you can accomplish anything, but for the same bullshit reason we tell people it's important to "get out and vote". Because it placates you. It has ZERO real impact. It just makes you feel like you're a better (if meaningless) person.

    13. Re:Jerks by _8553454222834292266 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The platoon taking fire for you somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan.

      Wait, are you trying to say that's not wasted money, and lives?

    14. Re:Jerks by fozzy1015 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Biggest problem I have with government is it spends whatever it likes, regardless how much I pay in taxes.

      This. Why should we feel morally compelled to offer up MORE of our hard earned money to a group of people who are completely unable to responsibly handle what we already give them? Even if we turned over our entire yearly incomes and lived off the land, they'd still find a way to utterly piss it all away and we'd be in the same boat. Blaming *us* for the state's financial woes is blaming the victim. The state needs to get its own shit straight before they go pointing the finger at anybody else.

      It's hard to have sympathy for the state's plight. When the state announced they were going to close 70 state parks private individuals donated money in an attempt to keep some of those parks open.

      Then it turned out that up to $54 million was squirrelled away, for still murky reasons, that should of gone to funding the parks.

      If CA finances are this much of a mess how can Californians in good conscious be asked to pay yet more in tax hikes?

      http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=8750455

    15. Re:Jerks by wmbetts · · Score: 2

      I think the idea was to put a list of pre-approved projects up for vote or to let people submit ideas for approval by a board of some sort. I would hope a city, county, state, etc wouldn't actually let people vote on erecting statues of giant penises. San Francisco is obviously excluded. I was disappointed not seeing any when I visited for the first time.

      --
      "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
    16. Re:Jerks by azadrozny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't that what California does now? Prop 123 to pay for X and Prop 456 to pay for Y. Some outrageous percentage of their budget is tied up in these "feel good" mandates. The legislature wants to increase funding for teachers, but they first have to pay out to the "orphan kitten" fund. When someone attempts to repeal the mandate, they are villainized in TV ads, saying they want to feed the kittens, and the elderly, to alligators.

    17. Re:Jerks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you think Romney and Obama are equally statist then you haven't been paying attention. Not my fault.

      The fact is you have two choices, one is better than the other in terms of individual liberties and economics. The OP made the poorly stated point "they are all not worth a dam just the rich standing on the backs for the working man". Do you understand what it is that will stand for the working man? Centralized government will only work against this. The conservative stands for local government power, states rights, limitations on federal power, the constitution. If you truly want to help your neighbor and yourself you would support the conservative. But like as not you don't even understand this.

      Romney is no savior, he is no conservative, but he is better than the other choice. And you will note that I advise not to stop with Romney but to vote conservative in all other offices where you have the choice. And follow through. Do you have the wisdom to understand this and do the right thing? Or will you just keep drinking the kool aid and doing as you are told by John Stewart?

      Have a good day.

    18. Re:Jerks by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Those projects would literally be better than the many projects that produce absolutely nothing, or less than nothing. My city spent a couple million dollars replacing perfectly good lampposts with quaint-looking ones that provide less light. I wish we got a dick statue instead.

    19. Re:Jerks by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, they'll Prop 123 to demand X (which passes), and in the same election Prop 124 for the tax increase to pay for X (which gets voted down). Which is one of the major reasons why they're budget is in a serious mess.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    20. Re:Jerks by farble1670 · · Score: 2

      It'd be easy to do. Put a list of projects and costs on the internet and let people vote for them. Top votes win and we keep going down the list until we're out of money. Anyone or any entity that wants to private fund a project can whip out their checkbook.

      right, and when people vote to spend your tax dollars on free donuts and coffee for your city and personal massages for all residents, what will you do then?

    21. Re:Jerks by farble1670 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i can top that.

      like many cities san jose was and is struggling its budget and has laid off workers, cut worker wages, cut pensions and benefits, and cut city services. that didn't stop them from building a new $400M city hall right at the peak of the economic downturn.

      the old offices were *fine* (i live across the street from them), and if they needed more space there were (and still are) literally hundreds of large vacant office buildings in san jose that could have been had for cheap.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose_City_Hall
      http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2002/04/29/story2.html?page=all

    22. Re:Jerks by Mr.CRC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good luck convincing the tax man with that excuse when you can easily look up every order you made on Amazon and any substantial retailer, and you have email confirmations on file of every purchase.

    23. Re:Jerks by forand · · Score: 2

      Perhaps the issue is that you clearly do not understand how your government works. The fact that your town is 15 miles outside of Sacto doesn't mean that maintaining your roads is a State issue. In fact it is NOT. It is either the responsibility of your town or your county if unincorporated. Similarly the reasons your school budgets are being cut is most likley because of Prop 13 (which limits property tax) than because of poor management (although both could be at fault). I have no idea why you think CA spends anywhere near the most per student on education. According to this Census report, CA does not spend near the top per student. You seem to be woefully confused about how your government works. I would suggest you start fixing the government problems you see around by first informing yourself about how it is supposed to operate and stop blaming your state government for the stupidity of your local government (e.g. for putting up expensive signage).

    24. Re:Jerks by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      Santa Clara's even worse: they're spending taxpayer money on a goddamn football stadium.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    25. Re:Jerks by LF11 · · Score: 2

      Remind me, how is this a bad thing? :)

    26. Re:Jerks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What a fantastic idea. We could elect a board who could review ideas submitted by the public. They would meet regularly to vote on the best ideas. This board would have a quite a bit of power thought. We should write some kind of incorporating document to limit their authority.

  2. Great by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Insightful

    which estimates it will see an additional $317 million annually as a result

    And will be instantly pissed away on corruption and bullshit and the bond payments for the initial funding for that idiotic "high speed" train which is really just a welfare project for high paid political cronies to sit around on boards and committees.

    1. Re:Great by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      Oh, well, there's a few good schools. No need to try and fight the corruption and waste and bullshit elsewhere, then! I have seen the light!

      Seriously, your response was almost a complete non sequitur.

    2. Re:Great by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you show me where I can sign to reduce the ridiculous prison spending, I'll sign ASAP.

      We could start by repealing the absurd drug criminalization, and the 3-strikes law.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    3. Re:Great by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You really lose all credibility when you rant about some point and then try to justify the rant with bad math.

      And then you accuse people who do disagree with as having poor math skills.

      Well 1 in 7 people DON'T work for the government. It's 7% of people who work for the government. I hope you understand the difference.

      And guess what - it was the SAME percentage as it was in the 1970's. Government employment hasn't grown. Yes there have been minor fluctuations. But it's flat flat flat since the 1970's.

      So what has happened to drive the debt up?

      Try TAX CUTS. Starting with Reagan. Spending in the US has not increased significantly as a percentage of GDP. What has happened is tax collection has gone done as a percentage of GDP. Right now it's less than any time since Truman was in office. In theory it was supposed to lead to increased revenues for government. Well guess what - GHW Bush called it voodoo economics. He was right. There is NO evidence that this idea has led to increased revenues. Revenues did go up, but at the same rate you would expect from economic and population growth. A math literate would realize this, but apparently conservative economists are more tied to their world views than they are to using math to validate their ideas.

      Ronald Reagan ALSO made a large increase to the payroll withholding tax in order to finance benefits for the boomer generation. Something I happen to have been paying for 30 years.

      Unfortunately Ronnie and Congress turned around and spent that on defense and tax cuts. And left IOUs in our stockings. Which are now coming due. So see your idea of immediate funding doesn't work. Governments screw that up so easily it's pathetic.

      Personally since I have some investing acumen I'd have been better off without SS. The extra invested money would be worth a lot more than my current expected SS benefit. But I realize not everybody is in that position.

      Now it's kind of instructive to see who the primary beneficiaries of the tax cuts and defense spending were. I think a lot of people can guess. It certainly wasn't the boomer middle class which is starting to retire right now. Guess also who is screaming for even more tax cuts now.

      FACT: Boomers paid all sorts of debts, including the financing of their parent's retirements, the Marshal Plan and the Cold War, which was a big pill to swallow. What the hell kind of privileged class do you think you are that you feel you can escape your responsibilities to the society you live in?

  3. Re:No thanks by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The's another dynamic here. Imagine if you're a brick and mortar store trying to compete with amazon. Not only do they have low overhead, high volumes, etc, but they have a 10% price break from no sales taxes. How can you compete with that? this levels the playing field a little bit. Inb4 brick and mortar is a fail: remember that they provide al people jobs in California, so if we can make brick and mortar more competitive with online (at least by removing artificial barriers) then it is good for the state.

    B&M stores can't compete anyhow. If I want something, chances are I'd have to go to five stores to find it, and it'd be 20% more than I could buy the item for online. After I spent $5 worth of gas looking for it. Once again, no thanks.

    Why level the playing field? Amazon has a very good business going that employs a lot of people. B&M stores that only stock a slice of what I want are yesterdays old moldy news.

    You have seen the story about how amazon intends to deliver about 50-70% of their items the same day as ordered? They're already working with a van service here in the southwest and I've been happy with their deliveries so far.

    Oh, and all of the grocery stores near me will pull and deliver an order for free. One did it so the rest had to follow suit.

    Seems like the wave is moving away from lots of stores that don't have what I want to a bunch of giant warehouses and guys that bring the stuff to my house. But lets fark that up by 'leveling the playing field', which in my experience means cutting the legs out of someone doing a good job and handing them to someone that wants to screw those legs to the top of their head.

  4. Re:They'll get out of paying... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

    They don't care. All they want is more money and more power. If this bombs they'll pass something else.

    People need to stop looking at politicians as beings with feelings and consciences.

    Honestly, this state cannot go bankrupt soon enough, or whatever happens when we reach that point. Federal receivership or handle the bankruptcy one county at a time. Whatever.

  5. Re:No thanks by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 2

    Any tax money amazon gets, they'd get anyway. If $9 more breaks the bank on a $100 purchase then you shouldn't be spend the $100 anyway.

    You're starting to sound like my wife.

    Frankly, I buy 10% more than I would if I were universally taxed. What do you think does more for the economy...me and a brazillion other people spending a little extra to build and deliver things, or giving that money to the California legislators to build that high speed rail that starts near nothing and ends near nothing and that almost nobody will ever ride?

  6. Legal corruption by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    And the reason why those avoidance strategies for the rich are "legal" is because some rich contingent paid off a lobbyist who in turn wrote some ridiculous exclusion into the tax code who then handed that pre-written "law" to a politician who was given a piece of the lobbyist's cut to attach that "law" as a ridiculous addendum to a an unrelated bill that got passed by other corrupt politicians who also sipped from the same money well. But sure, it's legal.

  7. Who cares? by hsmith · · Score: 2

    Honestly, when VA starts collecting sales tax from Amazon it will have zero impact on my buying decisions from them.

    I buy from Amazon because it is easy and convenient. With Prime, things are delivered right to the door within a day or two. When same day shipping is there, there will be virtually no where else I'll need to shop.

    Sales tax? BFD.

  8. excessively burdensome to merchants by lophophore · · Score: 2

    This is the beginning of the end for sales-tax evading commerce of all kinds, e-commerce, telephone ordering, and order by mail. It is the beginning of the end for the small and mid size non-store commerce businesses.

    As every state, county, and other municipalities pile on to demanding these non-store merchants collect their sales taxes, the merchants are going to be faced with a very difficult task: keeping track of the tax rate where the purchase is delivered, and then remitting those funds to the appropriate government agency. Consider a city dwelling consumer, who is liable for city, county, and state sales taxes. The merchant must know how much to collect from each customer based on the delivery address, and will need to maintain separate accounting for every district that they must remit the collected taxes to.

    This is going to be very expensive, and guess who pays? Mr. Customer. It will also be very damaging to small and medium size non-store retailers, who will not be able to afford the systems to administer collecting for tens of thousands of different tax regions.

    There needs to be a better solution, one that can scale, one that is acceptable to both the merchants and the tax-collecting government.

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
    1. Re:excessively burdensome to merchants by bws111 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sounds like a great business opportunity - tax clearing house. Probably already exists. Oops, just googled it, and here it is.

  9. Re:US Constitution, Section 9, Paragraph 5 by bws111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The flaw in your logic is thinking that sales tax is a tax on goods. It is not. It is a tax on transactions. You don't owe tax because you bought a book, you owe tax because you spent $15.

  10. Re:No thanks by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not only do they have low overhead, high volumes, etc, but they have a 10% price break from no sales taxes. How can you compete with that? this levels the playing field a little bit.

    Sure, lets artificially make less efficient businesses more competitive.

    This is why I inserted time-wasting OS calls into my qsort() function. I want bubble sort to be able to compete with more efficient sorting algorithms, so I make sure that bubble is artificially more competitive.

    I also installed the battery from the old dumb phone into my new smart phone, because it just was not right that the new phone lasted longer on a charge than the old one did.

    Are you picking up what I am putting down? Maybe you should have someone else help you pick that up, even though you are perfectly capable of doing it on your own. We wouldn't want people incapable of picking it up by themselves to feel less competitive.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  11. Pudding filled swimming pools? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    giant pudding-filled swimming pools

    That sounds really cool. I would definately vote for that!

  12. Re:No thanks by Larryish · · Score: 2

    Harrison Bergeron FTW!

    http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html