Beerball Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 CT started that recently as well. 'Course, you've always been technically required to declare the purchases and pay the taxes when you file... but who actually does that? Still, most of what it does is bog the economy down a little bit more. Yeh, taxes!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Of course NYS was the 1st to start mandating this. Not to mention on top of that usurping it for other purchasing not already collected when you file your Income Tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zevo Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 its amazing to me that government still has not realized that more taxes is not the answer....how much more can the American citizens take... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 its amazing to me that government still has not realized that more taxes is not the answer....how much more can the American citizens take... The problem is, more taxes IS the answer. It's the answer to the scumbags in government keeping their cushy personal deals in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 its amazing to me that government still has not realized that more taxes is not the answer....how much more can the American citizens take... The problem is, more taxes IS the answer. It's the answer to the scumbags in government keeping their cushy personal deals in place. The question is, how much is enough for vote-hungry politicians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Discussion going on here as well: http://www.neowin.net/news/california-is-the-latest-state-to-tax-amazoncom-purchases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Y'know, on the one hand, I can understand them doing this from the standpoint that online sales WITH state taxes makes for a more level playing field for the the brick-n-mortar shops to survive. On the other hand, that has nothing to do with why the state is doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 The state didn't pass a 1 percent continuation of the sales tax, so it dropped today. This is their attempt to get that $. Mine went from 10 percent to 9 percent. Also hidden in the budget that only dems voted for are various raids on county and city funds. The cries for recall will be starting on a local level soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 The question is, how much is enough for vote-hungry politicians? How much power and control is enough? If history is any teacher, the answer is, no matter how much, it's never enough. It amazes me that people who make modest incomes (and no pension) continue to blindly support governments whose primary mission is to enrich its own members. Whose pocket do people think those $300,000/yr pensions come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) Also hidden in the budget that only dems voted for are various raids on county and city funds. The cries for recall will be starting on a local level soon. They're taking $48 billion from my county, which is essentially the only county in the state that is conservative-leaning. There will be, however, little or no recall that will change this state. The tree-hugging union members rule the school, and they will never, ever, ever let go of every penny they can squeeze from its residents. There's a reason Rick Perry spends so much time here, and it's not to see how we're doing things so well. Edited July 2, 2011 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Y'know, on the one hand, I can understand them doing this from the standpoint that online sales WITH state taxes makes for a more level playing field for the the brick-n-mortar shops to survive. On the other hand, that has nothing to do with why the state is doing this. So, I ask, in all seriousness, why are they doing it? I understand that the religion of all conservatives is "no taxes", but why should on-line retailers (especially behemoths like Amazon) be exempt from accounting for the same sales tax that brick and mortar retailers are required to pay? They already have huge advantages, in relation to the amount they pay for wholesale merchandise, in many cases. If on-line retailers are not required to pay/collect sales tax, why should bricks and mortar? In the end, customers pay for it all, anyways, in some way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 but why should on-line retailers (especially behemoths like Amazon) be exempt from accounting for the same sales tax that brick and mortar retailers are required to pay? A couple things: The b&m stores that have a presence in the State presumably also reap the benefits that the State provides. Therefore (IMO), they should pay. Companies that have no presence in a particular State are provided nothing from that State, so why should they be forced to pay? 2ndly, if someone buys something from a State where they aren't domiciled, they aren't exempt from the Sales Tax. ie, if I as a NYS resident were to walk into a CA store, it's not as if upon checking out I can say "I live in NYS, so don't charge me Sales Tax". Personally, as alluded to in my post above, I was "peeved" when NYS decided that it wanted to start collecting on purchases made from out-of-state vendors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 So, I ask, in all seriousness, why are they doing it? I understand that the religion of all conservatives is "no taxes", but why should on-line retailers (especially behemoths like Amazon) be exempt from accounting for the same sales tax that brick and mortar retailers are required to pay? They already have huge advantages, in relation to the amount they pay for wholesale merchandise, in many cases. If on-line retailers are not required to pay/collect sales tax, why should bricks and mortar? In the end, customers pay for it all, anyways, in some way or another. As stated above, a sales tax is supposed to be used to help provide services to those in the area. A store in San Francisco collects and pays sales tax because they get police and fire protection, roads maintenance leading to their business, and the like. Amazon gets none of these benefits. Yes, they indirectly use the roads to get the products to the customers - but that's why FedEx and UPS collect sales tax on their services. I also find it interesting that you state online retailers have huge advantages already - almost like they shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) As stated above, a sales tax is supposed to be used to help provide services to those in the area. A store in San Francisco collects and pays sales tax because they get police and fire protection, roads maintenance leading to their business, and the like. Amazon gets none of these benefits. Yes, they indirectly use the roads to get the products to the customers - but that's why FedEx and UPS collect sales tax on their services. I also find it interesting that you state online retailers have huge advantages already - almost like they shouldn't. I understand that online retail can/should have certain advantages...their customer base is obviously much greater than that of a single retail outlet. They can have a half dozen clearinghouses across the country (vs 100's of locations for a single retail outlet) to service their customers, and, can purchase items in bulk quantities at a greatly discounted price. That is fine...but why should they get the added of advantage of not being responsible for sales tax? Doesn't Amazon's clearing house in Texas get the advantage of fire and police protection, just like a Best Buy store? If their clearinghouse was on fire, wouldn't local firefighters come to put it out? That clearing house is providing the same type of service as a traditional retail outlet, only they are processing the transactions in a warehouse, and using mail service to get them to their customers. Nobody seems to have a problem with this? Even as the loss of jobs caused by on-line retail contributes to a declining economy? I don't even see this as an "anti-business" issue (as our "great"governor Perry no doubt does), it just is not inherently fair and doesn't really contribute to fair competition between electronic and brick/mortar retail. Edited July 3, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 So, I ask, in all seriousness, why are they doing it? I understand that the religion of all conservatives is "no taxes", but why should on-line retailers (especially behemoths like Amazon) be exempt from accounting for the same sales tax that brick and mortar retailers are required to pay? They already have huge advantages, in relation to the amount they pay for wholesale merchandise, in many cases. If on-line retailers are not required to pay/collect sales tax, why should bricks and mortar? In the end, customers pay for it all, anyways, in some way or another. Because the state is beyond broke and they have no other areas of revenue. Companies and people are leaving in droves, but Sacramento would never, EVER address spending because it relies on the unions (SEIU, etc.) to keep them in office to give them the goods. We are the the poster child for "We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem." Put another way, the difference between Wisconsin and California is that California would never, ever, ever, ever, ever let the state be put in the hands of the right. Ever. And don't bring up Arnold because the only thing that makes Arnold a Republican is standing next to Nancy Pelosi. We are screwed. Very, very screwed. There is no telling just how bad things have to get before people north of Orange County finally wake up. Like I said, there's a reason Rick Perry spends so much time here. All day, every day, he pulls companies to Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 I understand that online retail can/should have certain advantages...their customer base is obviously much greater than that of a single retail outlet. They can have a half dozen clearinghouses across the country (vs 100's of locations for a single retail outlet) to service their customers, and, can purchase items in bulk quantities at a greatly discounted price. That is fine...but why should they get the added of advantage of not being responsible for sales tax? Doesn't Amazon's clearing house in Texas get the advantage of fire and police protection, just like a Best Buy store? If their clearinghouse was on fire, wouldn't local firefighters come to put it out? That clearing house is providing the same type of service as a traditional retail outlet, only they are processing the transactions in a warehouse, and using mail service to get them to their customers. Nobody seems to have a problem with this? Even as the loss of jobs caused by on-line retail contributes to a declining economy? I don't even see this as an "anti-business" issue (as our "great"governor Perry no doubt does), it just is not inherently fair and doesn't really contribute to fair competition between electronic and brick/mortar retail. They have no physical presence in California or New York; the states are saying that referral programs count as a "physical presence" which is ridiculous. The Texas thing was different -- I can see how the clearinghouse could be thought of a physical presence and I admit I don't know why Amazon says that it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) A couple things: The b&m stores that have a presence in the State presumably also reap the benefits that the State provides. Therefore (IMO), they should pay. Companies that have no presence in a particular State are provided nothing from that State, so why should they be forced to pay? 2ndly, if someone buys something from a State where they aren't domiciled, they aren't exempt from the Sales Tax. ie, if I as a NYS resident were to walk into a CA store, it's not as if upon checking out I can say "I live in NYS, so don't charge me Sales Tax". Personally, as alluded to in my post above, I was "peeved" when NYS decided that it wanted to start collecting on purchases made from out-of-state vendors. I realize that it is a very layered issue, but, while they may be provided nothing by a given state, their sales are negatively affecting the state, not only by adding to the states unemployment numbers, but also, diminishing a source of the states revenue. I don't know what the real dollars we are talking about, from state to state, but Texas presented Amazon with a 270million dollar tax bill, for 3 years with of sales, by Texas residents. On a federal level that is chump change, but it isn't nothing on the state level. Now, in the case of Texas, Amazon is threatening to close down their outlet here, as a result...Perry will likely not let that happen, but, in this conservative-Republican state, he wouldn't have a lot of backing from other state Republicans. Edited July 3, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 California or is bust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 I think we paid like 200k for the software that gives us the tax rates for every city/county/state. Something like 10k a year for updates. It would probably be a bit more expensive for Amazon as they would fall into more categories. Why does everyone keep ignoring these are taxes already owed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts