<p>I’m tired of the bogus, bs, strawman arguments…</p>
<p>I may have to go back to home remodeling threads. :)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>They are subject to sales taxes in the form of use taxes. How many
times do I have to state this fact?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I only used the english words that he provided.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>My arguments were to the letter. Yours are bogus.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You are wrong. Those aren’t facts. But a different collection
mechanism would be required. Tom has already mentioned that sort
of thing for wealthy taxpayers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your vision of Amazon is that they are capable of forcing people to buy from them? I’m not sure what to say. This is hilarious.</p>
<p>I can assure you, what got us into this mess in the first place is the demonization of American business. So sad.</p>
<p>OK…I’m done with this…</p>
<p>MiamiDAP
</p>
<p>I would think that any good American would have a problem with this, no matter which side of the aisle they call home.</p>
<p>Yes, when one’s views are challenged in the adult sandbox, it is time to take one’s toys and go home.</p>
<p>Yeah…ok…spidey…</p>
<p>dstark:
</p>
<p>Because any increase in taxes is usually a bad thing, but right now when the heart of our economy is barely fluttering? It is moronic.</p>
<p>dstark: :D</p>
<p>
They are not actually “subject” to use taxes if no one pays the use tax and no practical mechanism exists to make anyone pay it. </p>
<p>Why should I even have to state that fact? :D</p>
<p>
: I disagree with you but your argument is not bogus. I appreciate your honesty.</p>
<p>
But then you had to write that. The “extortion” I mentioned was Amazon’s threat to harm California “affiliates” in retribution for California requiring Amazon to collect the tax (you know, the one BCEagle keeps pointing out is already owed :D) That’s extortion. Saying they’ll build a distribution center if California will continue to grant them the favorable benefit of not having to collect that tax like WalMart does? That’s basically bribery.</p>
<p>Amazon practices “extortion”.</p>
<p>Amazon’s completely accurate reporting that its affiliates will be harmed is now a “threat”.</p>
<p>Amazon offering to create jobs is now “bribery”.</p>
<p>Gee, why would I ever think that American business is being demonized?</p>
<p>One day, all the Jeff Bezoses of the world may just decide to take THEIR toys and stomp home from the sand box. Then what would we do?</p>
<p>To me, Jeff Bezos, and every person running Amazon, is an American hero. They provide a great service, and employ thousands of people. They bring money from all over the planet to the USA. They provide thousands of people like you and me the opportunity to start a small business.</p>
<p>Thank you, Amazon.com.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Big-Lies-About-American-Business/dp/0307464946[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/Big-Lies-About-American-Business/dp/0307464946</a></p>
<p>“I would think that any good American would have a problem with this, no matter which side of the aisle they call home.”</p>
<p>-Exactly, “you would think”. And I thought that politics is not allowed no matter who thinks what, and again, one side always win because they always exclude themselves from the rules. Even those who says that they wish everybody pays more taxes, they do not do it themselves. So, as I said nothing new. But I am not expressing my opinion, because the rule says, “No politics”.</p>
<p>Spideygirl, I think you’re being just a tad bit selective in your choice of “facts.” Remember, this isn’t about whether a tax is owed, it’s about whether one company should be authorized to operate in such a way as to make it impractical to collect that tax, when other companies are not so favored, and therefore have to operate at a competitive disadvantage. Amazon’s “cheater’s advantage” helps it profit at the expense of other stores and online retailers who collect the tax at the point of sale, nothing more, nothing less. And the harm to Amazon’s affiliates came as a result of Amazon’s entirely unilateral and pointless severance of their contracts based on Amazon’s tactical decision that that might make California fold. it was a bare-knuckles extortion move, nothing more, nothing less. Amazon’s offer to “create jobs” - actually, just move them to one place rather than another, as they’ll need the same amount of employees to execute their business wherever the facilities are located - is conditioned on their being allowed to keep that cheater’s advantage. You talk about “demonizing business” - but the victims here are other businesses. That’s why WalMart is a major supporter of the new regulations. If a California buys a widget on WalMart.com sales tax is collected at the point of sale. Same item on Amazon - it’s not.</p>
<p>Amazon may well be a wonderful business. I might prefer Amazon to WalMart on lots of points. But in this instance Amazon trying to get ahead by cheating at the expense of other businesses. I’d think that as a supporter of businesses you would disapprove of that. Let them compete on quality, service and price on a level playing field.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The Federal Income Tax used to have a sales tax deduction. You
could provide receipts or just take the amount computed based
on your income and state.</p>
<p>There are other methods that are not too difficult. Getting gross
receipts on out of state credit cards and other electronic money
would make it easy.</p>
<p>These methods could even be used to eliminate the requirement that
bricks and morter stores need to collect and turn in sales tax
collections.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>WalMart also has an online operation.</p>
<p>Do they collect sales taxes?</p>
<p>If WalMart got rid of their Bricks and Morter stores and just kept
their online presence, would they want internet merchants to collect
sales taxes for the state?</p>
<p>
Yes. On all sales in California.</p>
<p>
Are you serious? “Other methods” of collecting sales/use tax are not “easy”, they are virtually impossible to implement. Right now, my family probably makes a couple dozen online purchases a year. We pay sales tax on some, but not all of those purchases. Even buying something at Amazon.com may or may not involve the payment of sales taxes. (The Amazon marketplace serves as a conduit for many merchants, some of which collect California sales tax.) I don’t think I could correctly determine my family’s “use tax” on items purchased without paying sales tax even if I was motivated to do so. For Amazon to collect sales tax based on the location to which the goods are shipped would be child’s play by comparison.</p>
<p>Make no mistake: this is all about Amazon grabbing an unfair advantage over business competitors as a result of unevenly-applied government regulation. Businesses which provide “brick and mortar” facilities - you know, the places you go to actually see and touch the merchandise before ordering it online - should not be placed at an artificial disadvantage by government. Pro-business boosters should be in support of this initiative</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>[Wal-Mart</a> sells items to Californians online without collecting tax - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/29/business/la-fi-amazon-tax-walmart-20110830]Wal-Mart”>Wal-Mart online sellers skirt taxes)</p>
<p>The world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., has been leading
the attack against Internet giant Amazon.com Inc. for refusing to
collect sales taxes on online purchases. But Wal-Mart doesn’t always
collect sales tax on items sold on its site, either.</p>
<p>The Walmart.com site, based in Brisbane near San Francisco
International Airport, offers hundreds of products from a third-party
retailer, CSN Stores in Boston, that are sold without collecting taxes
when state residents buy them.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Ridiculous. Just provide a table in the state income tax form based
on income - you make this amount, you pay this in sales taxes.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Why do people use that term. The person using that term is often the
person making the mistake.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I hate lousy tax implementations.</p>
<p>Federal Income Tax is the worst. The problem is not in paying the
money - I give the US Treasury five figures extra at the end of the
year just in case I owe something and then get it back after I file.
What’s annoying is the sheer amount of time to prepare the return.</p>
<p>Jumping in here. This is what I do for a living. The only way States can require an internet retailer to collect the sales tax is if that business has nexus with that State. It should be obvious to everyone that it is much more efficient for a retailer to collect sales tax and send that money to the taxing authority than for the States/local governments to attempt to collect the use tax from customers that were not charged sales tax. Now what many here do not understand is that these internet companies want it both ways they want to provide services and make them convenient, they want to increase their reach by having local businesses link to their site and/or they want to warehouse goods at various locations all to control costs or to increase sales but these activities give them nexus in many states where these services are provided, warehouses are located or agents are located. Once they have nexus they should be treated just like the brick and mortar store.
Amazon is wrong- as I said earlier O.com makes a better case.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s not more efficient for the retailer.</p>
<p>BC- it could be since if the retailer is found to have nexus the State can require them to pay all the money that should have been collected. It happens with Delaware retailers all the time when we catch them in NJ. They end up owing for all sales to NJ customers. In fact I believe there was a NH company that ended up owing Mass. a significant sum for selling tires in Mass.
We have many businesses that register and collect just to protect themselves against those situations.</p>