<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah! Then make sure you do all you can to make sure other people pay the taxes you are avoiding.</p>
<p>The people who are hurt the most by California’s latest brilliant job-crushing move are the small businesses who work through Amazon. </p>
<p>Will the last person to leave the state of California please turn out the light.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But then you’d have to pay tax on your Amazon purchases as WA is one of the few states where Amazon charges sales tax. You’d also have to be sure that you could find a job on the WA side or you’d still be paying OR income tax.</p>
<p>If you work in Oregon, you can just ship your stuff to your office.</p>
<p>SiliconValleyMom has perfectly described the reason I am a heavy Amazon user. I use it for much more than books. I’m gradually increasing the number of items I have on autoship - calcium supplements, sardines, quinoa, laundry detergent, etc. </p>
<p>I also use Ebay, to a lesser extent, for this purpose. I use Ryka walking/gym shoes; they are the only brand that fits well. If I need a new pair, it is quicker and easier to go the Ebay, search on my size and preferred model, order a brand-new pair, and have it turn up on my porch a few days later, at most. Compare this to driving to a shoe store, where they will probably have only a few Ryka models, and almost certainly won’t have my size. Once I needed a gift for a little girl who loves dancing. I found an Ebay seller who sold beautiful custom tutus - probably a mother at home with young kids. I chose colors, sizes, decorations, and she sent the thing out by the next morning. It was beautiful and reasonably priced (has anyone looked at the prices on tutus in stores?)</p>
<p>For several years I have been giving a close relative sterling Christmas ornaments from a “12 days of Christmas” series that began in the year she was born (around 40 years ago). I find them easily on Ebay - how could I ever find these by visiting antique stores?</p>
<p>I use Zappos a lot, too, for shoes for the family. You can’t beat their free-shipping-both-ways, 365-day return policy. I have been buying clothes from Lands End and LLBean for years.</p>
<p>I do pay state taxes on Amazon purchases, so that is not a factor in my decision to buy from them. I feel bad seeing the bookstores disappear, but I am under too much time pressure to continue doing much shopping at brick-and-mortar stores.</p>
<p>And look at the gasoline saved, the emissions not produced…</p>
<p>The jobs lost. The families harmed. Nearly everybody goes out shopping at least one day a week. Adding a stop or two hardly changes the total gas usage. And many live where they can shop by walking at lunch. Lame excuse.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>And the jobs gained.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>And the families that are better off.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>We do our weekly grocery shopping at 7:00 to 8:00 AM on Sunday morning. Tell me about all of the shoe stores open at that time. Oh yeah; I can buy it on the internet at 3:00 AM.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>And you can say that generally for everyone in every kind of setting and traffic pattern?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>So what? Many don’t live where they can shop by walking at lunch.</p>
<p>Lame argument.</p>
<p>
No, it’s not. The standard “witty” soundbite response to anyone who ever notes that taxes - any taxes, anywhere - are too low (or too nonexistent) is: “Well, you can go ahead and pay the tax yourself, then!!! Heh-heh, heh-heh, heh-heh.” I’ll make my stock response: by your logic, if you thought the invasion of Iraq was warranted - and I didn’t - the “logical” response I should have made to you would be “Well, you should pick up a gun yourself and head off to Baghdad to fight the war yourself then! Heh-heh, heh-heh.” But that is not a “reasonable” response, it’s a childish schoolyard taunt. Sorry.</p>
<p>
Interesting to see that you feel that the appropriate response to corporate extortion is to blame the victim for not giving the bully whatever he wants. My feeling is that that attitude has a lot to do with what got us into this mess in the first place.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes it is. You missed the context which I elaborated on.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Please tell me where I made any reference to taxes being too high or
low.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The remainder of your comments are moot as I don’t fall into your
category.</p>
<p>Why should internet sales be sales tax free, and sales from physical stores have sales taxes (in the states that have sales taxes)?</p>
<p>I thought there are no politics here anymore…but I am wrong…politics on one side is allowed, I guess, nothing new.</p>
<p>This is business against business…</p>
<p>Why should internet sales be sales tax free, and sales from physical stores have sales taxes (in the states that have sales taxes)?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Internet sales aren’t tax-free - you are required to pay taxes on your internet purchases if the seller doesn’t collect them. In Massachusetts there is the sales tax and then the use tax - they are effectively the same thing but the latter is the term used for things purchased out of state and brought into the state for use.</p>
<p>But very few people pay those internet taxes…otherwise Amazon wouldn’t give a s…about this issue.</p>
<p>And WalMart wouldn’t give a s…</p>
<p>And small business owners, who have physical stores, would not give a s…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MiamiDAP - just pointing out the logic - or lack thereof - behind certain arguments. Taxes, Iraq war, you can pick either side. But don’t replace reasoned arguments with cheap shots.</p>
<p>
This is another example of a bogus argument. If this was actually a viable system there would be no argument. Amazon’s sales are <strong>theoretically</strong> subject to the same taxes as a purchase at your local WalMart. But theory isn’t reality. Only reality pays the bills.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s your lack of logic that is your problem. The issue was dstark’s
desire to pay taxes.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Why do you continue to do so then?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s not an argument. What I posted was a fact.</p>
<p>So you’re calling my facts bogus arguments?</p>
<p>Tsk, tsk, tsk. You can have your own arguments but you can’t have
your own facts.</p>
<p>I never said I, exclusive of anybody else.</p>
<p>You knew what I meant…</p>
<p>My argument is if physical stores are subject to sales taxes then internet sales should be subject to sales. Why should this not be the case?</p>
<p>See, BCEagle, that’s the problem. The “issue” wasn’t dstarks’ “desire to pay taxes”, and both dstark and I give you credit for having the intelligence to know that. The issue was that if the retailer doesn’t collect taxes, nobody is going to go through their receipts to voluntarily file a “use tax” return which the state would never audit. By pretending that the issue was dstarks “desire to pay taxes” you’ve created a straw man argument.</p>
<p>That’s why your “arguments” are bogus. In fact, by not requiring Amazon to collect sales tax on their business no sales tax- or use tax - will be paid on those transactions. Those are the facts - and I’m pretty sure you’re aware that those are the facts. By pretending otherwise, you created a bogus argument.</p>
<p>kluge
</p>
<p>That would be totally logical (although not likely). Sorry, Kluge. Not only would it be logical, but it’s probably an argument you previously used when that topic was discussed. In fact, it may just be one of the most commonly used anti-war comments (You like war? Send your kid, not mine).</p>