SC tried to get Amazon to collect taxes.  They stopped construction on a distribution center that was 30% complete and began canceling contracts.  Then the legislature got its collective head out of its ass and re-instated the bill they killed.

Amazon ginned construction right back up.

It's a more complex problem, Amazon enjoys an unfair sales advantage that has pretty much devastated the local stores.  The net effect being a loss of state and local jobs and tax income.  Allowing them to operate as a non-taxable storefront which is basically local (the internet) is a key component to the decade long economic morass we are trying to come out of.

The redevelopment agencies were another worthless slushfund; do you really think Irvine needs external funds to "revitalize" their fair city?

Last edited by Emmeran (2011-06-30 13:05:52)

First and only time this is likely to ever happen, but I agree with Phred.

This is a commerce killer.  Amazon took a lot of risk to establish its business model.  It was in the red for many years before it caught on. Now that it so successful and has essentially changed commerce in America the states want to come in and grab some of the money.  They are not entitled to it. 

If Amazon has to collect taxes in Illinois, I will stop purchasing from Amazon.  I will not instead purchase locally, because the taxes are already too high. I'll just keep my money, because other than groceries and gas there's nothing that I really need anyway.

headkicker_girl wrote:

First and only time this is likely to ever happen, but I agree with Phred.

This is a commerce killer.  Amazon took a lot of risk to establish its business model.  It was in the red for many years before it caught on. Now that it so successful and has essentially changed commerce in America the states want to come in and grab some of the money.  They are not entitled to it. 

If Amazon has to collect taxes in Illinois, I will stop purchasing from Amazon.  I will not instead purchase locally, because the taxes are already too high. I'll just keep my money, because other than groceries and gas there's nothing that I really need anyway.

Firstly Amazon didn't invent the business model, they just moved it to the internet; no more risk than any new business.

So basically Amazon goes off-shore to avoid the tax bite, builds it's cash there and then waits to repatriate it at a low single didget corporate rate during the next "tax holiday" (see Cisco).

Capitalism is all well and good until you try to start avoiding local responsibility as a means to increase your profit margin; in this case since they do have a presence in California they should own up. 

Common sense tells us sales tax should be charged at the rate of the delivery location, people in those locales have voted in the tax for specific purposes thusly they have chosen to pay that tax.  Common sense also tells us that this is strictly a political ploy there is no way Amazon is going to abandon the California market.

Emmeran wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

First and only time this is likely to ever happen, but I agree with Phred.

This is a commerce killer.  Amazon took a lot of risk to establish its business model.  It was in the red for many years before it caught on. Now that it so successful and has essentially changed commerce in America the states want to come in and grab some of the money.  They are not entitled to it. 

If Amazon has to collect taxes in Illinois, I will stop purchasing from Amazon.  I will not instead purchase locally, because the taxes are already too high. I'll just keep my money, because other than groceries and gas there's nothing that I really need anyway.

Firstly Amazon didn't invent the business model, they just moved it to the internet; no more risk than any new business.

So basically Amazon goes off-shore to avoid the tax bite, builds it's cash there and then waits to repatriate it at a low single didget corporate rate during the next "tax holiday" (see Cisco).

Capitalism is all well and good until you try to start avoiding local responsibility as a means to increase your profit margin; in this case since they do have a presence in California they should own up. 

Common sense tells us sales tax should be charged at the rate of the delivery location, people in those locales have voted in the tax for specific purposes thusly they have chosen to pay that tax.  Common sense also tells us that this is strictly a political ploy there is no way Amazon is going to abandon the California market.

The risk they entailed was bringing the online shopping mall to the internet in its mass infancy.  HKG is right, Amazon was sucking hind tit for years and it finally paid off and they are being targeted for it.

Speaking to purely physical presence, SC local business alliances kept spreading that bullshit all over the airwaves here.  I buy from Amazon now and eschew traveling to a local business.  Bringing them to the state in the form of a distribution center isn't going to make me all of a sudden buy more things from them but making them collect sales tax from me damn sure would make me stop buying from them.

I recently upgraded my home theatre system and of the TV, TV stand, receiver, speakers and DVD player I purchased the receiver and speakers online for two reasons.  First and foremost was that the items I wanted were no where to be found locally; second was price.  The TV I researched and found it cheaper locally so I went that route and the shipping made the stand cost prohibitive to buy online so that was local as well.

The bigger problem that ought to be addressed is the clout that Wal-mart possesses which allows it to have electronics manufacturers supply them with identical items that have different model numbers so they can get around price matching.  This is a known mechanism they employ.

Last edited by Scotty (2011-06-30 18:46:41)

Scotty wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Legally speaking, the citizens of California are supposed to send the state the sales tax on their Internet purchases.  So, it's already covered, right?

This.

You are legally obligated in most jurisdictions to pay your own sales tax on most online purchases.  The states ought to police their own.

My thought exactly.  Of course, we are legally obligated to pay our own income tax to the feds, but they would rather force our employers to do the collecting for them.

All sound points I'll concede that, however prepare to make up the difference in property or income taxes.  Like it or not sales tax is the fairest tax in the land, the more you consume the more you pay.

And let's be realistic: Amazon is simpley JC Whitney or the Sear's catalog made popular (again after 50 years); nothing new to see, keep moving along.

Tax short term capital gains at 50%. FUCK the daytraders.

Succession is a perennial theme in California politics.  One year it's the North wishing to break away, the next year it's the South.  Even different sections of counties wish to separate, and have done so in the past.  Next year it will be the North's turn to want to take their marbles and leave.  It's not been suggested to my knowledge, but I think a more logical breakup would be West (coastal) and East (inland) California becoming separate states.  The new states could call themselves East California and West California, or Outer California and Inner California.

Politics aside, broke is broke and to resolve that we must cut undeserved entitlements and insure fair taxation.

So yes, that means the prison guards don't get to retire at age 55 with $4mil in life expectancy benefits and the bond traders have to pay sales tax on the 110" TV's they purchase on Amazon.

They can be like the rest of us and suck the front teats for a while.

All this sort of thing is going to do is force offices to places like the Cayman Islands.

In that way, the purchases will happen in a no-tax location, and the parent company will direct delivery from warehouses held in the USA.

Then California will have to try and sort out inter-state commerce, and go for something like import duties on stuff from out of state.  Good luck.

The VAT is a mostly consumption-based tax, and it better handles (at least within Europe) stuff moving between countries.

Canada has (probably still has) the same issue with provincial sales taxes, but most provinces have harmonized with the federal sales tax to create a VAT-like tax called the HST... but you can still avoid it by buying offshore in the scenario I mentioned.