Arizona Wants $53M From Amazon In Sales Tax

The real problem is not the concept of taxation. The real problem is that government has grown too cumbersome, and tries to be too many things to too many people.

You want to dominate nations, you want to lead the planet in mass incarceration, you'll either get used to paying more than one third of your precious income to the government or you'll get used to seeing cutbacks in essential services and infrastructures.

I have a novel idea, why don't we learn to mind our own business as a nation, and how bout letting liberty prevail and ending the drug war's mass incarceration?
 
I don't know what the best answer is, but i do think something needs to change. Online sales continue to grow and people continue to neglect reporting it on their taxes. I would much rather see a federal tax imposed on all internet sales then having to report each individual purchase on my tax returns.
 
buttons said:
I don't know what the best answer is, but i do think something needs to change. Online sales continue to grow and people continue to neglect reporting it on their taxes. I would much rather see a federal tax imposed on all internet sales then having to report each individual purchase on my tax returns.
Click to expand...

Id rather government officials not waste taxpayer dollars on bullshit wars, wasteful social services and handouts to their buddies. In the meantime, since most people cant fix that, the people want the lowest tax burden possible.
 
buttons said:
I don't know what the best answer is, but i do think something needs to change. Online sales continue to grow and people continue to neglect reporting it on their taxes. I would much rather see a federal tax imposed on all internet sales then having to report each individual purchase on my tax returns.
Click to expand...

Why is it that your default position is to extend the power of government over your finances?

Why is your default position that government must be empowered to extract more money?

If the excess and unfair burden on B&M stores is their subjection to taxation, then mitigate their taxation.

Your approach, to extend taxation to online retailers, has you playing the pawn of oligarchs to support extension of their authority.

If you honestly believe that Amazon secures business solely because of their specific tax subjugation then you are delusional.
In my area sales tax is about 7.5%

I assure you that, for the vast majority of goods, Best Buy's prices are way more than 7.5% higher.
 
p0lish said:
BTW you're post is quite emotional and misses the point. Just a quick reference the lowest taxed bracket pays no taxes, so your statement of the "poor" being held down by heavy taxation is quite off-base.
Click to expand...

The lowest income earners pay a lot of tax. It's true that the lowest taxed brackets pay no income tax. They still pay a ton of sales, property, gas, payroll taxes and so on. Much more of their income is immediately subject to tax than that of wealthier individuals because of sales taxes alone which are highly regressive.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
The lowest income earners pay a lot of tax. It's true that the lowest taxed brackets pay no income tax. They still pay a ton of sales, property, gas, payroll taxes and so on. Much more of their income is immediately subject to tax than that of wealthier individuals because of sales taxes alone which are highly regressive.
Click to expand...

So why should we increase their sales tax liability under the guise of "fairness"?
 
Zangmonkey said:
So why should we increase their sales tax liability under the guise of "fairness"?
Click to expand...

You're attempting to argue against a statement I didn't make.

My opinion however, is that since everyone is already liable for sales tax for their online purchases, the collection process needs to be streamlined and applied universally starting with merchants. It's not fair in the sense that stricter sales tax collection will impact lower income earners more than higher earners, because it definitely will. It is fair in the sense that laws already in place should be enforced and applied equally.
 
Doh !!!! Looks like Arizonians are gonna get screwed now.
I love not paying tax on Amazon. I used to buy from Newegg but they decided to build a facility in NJ so I stopped buying to avoid the tax

I hate NJ
 
The real point is that Arizona is trying to ask for retroactive payment of taxes, at least apparently, and that is 100% illegal.


Think about it, i will pass a new bill that taxes you an extra 1% of income for every year you have been a member of Hardocp while having a nickname with a Z in it. So, while i pass the law i will send a bill to Zarathustra for the 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11 % income taxes he owes me from all those years!
 
Amazon is slowly killing brick and mortar stores. Brick and mortar stores have only become a mere storefront for Amazon. Right now Amazon has a competetive edge that b&m stores cannot match or compete with. They cannot undercut the cost of the product like Amazon can because they dont have the size advantage.

Brother-in-law and sister just bought a tv from Amazon since Amazon doesnt charge sales tax and that made the difference in price from local stores. Its that advantage that states will have to try and nullify to save local economies.
 
Also as someone else stated, YOU ARE SUPPOSSED TO DECLARE YOUR PURCHASES AND PAY THE TAXES! (yes, even for out of state purchases, but people think that they don't have to and are the real tax evaders here, not Amazon).
 
Zangmonkey said:
Why is it that your default position is to extend the power of government over your finances?

Why is your default position that government must be empowered to extract more money?

If the excess and unfair burden on B&M stores is their subjection to taxation, then mitigate their taxation.

Your approach, to extend taxation to online retailers, has you playing the pawn of oligarchs to support extension of their authority.

If you honestly believe that Amazon secures business solely because of their specific tax subjugation then you are delusional.
In my area sales tax is about 7.5%

I assure you that, for the vast majority of goods, Best Buy's prices are way more than 7.5% higher.
Click to expand...


Why is it your position that Amazon maintain a cometetive edge that local stores can never hope to match? Local businesse are not able to price goods at below cost and make up for it in volume like Amazon does.
 
Revdarian said:
Also as someone else stated, YOU ARE SUPPOSSED TO DECLARE YOUR PURCHASES AND PAY THE TAXES! (yes, even for out of state purchases, but people think that they don't have to and are the real tax evaders here, not Amazon).
Click to expand...

Then eliminate ALL sales tax collection requirements of local retailers to level the field. But don't eb surprised when you local cities tax bases is diminshed to almost zero.
 
BoogerBomb said:
Why is it your position that Amazon maintain a cometetive edge that local stores can never hope to match? Local businesse are not able to price goods at below cost and make up for it in volume like Amazon does.
Click to expand...

So, punitive measure to counteract a well oiled business model?

Undercutting has nothing to do with sales tax, btw.
 
BoogerBomb said:
Why is it your position that Amazon maintain a cometetive edge that local stores can never hope to match? Local businesse are not able to price goods at below cost and make up for it in volume like Amazon does.
Click to expand...

If the issue is one of pricing, then no small store will ever be able to compete.
Amazon's model is to reduce physical presence overhead.
A B&M store doesn't have that objective.

There *is* a market for local, quality and expensive goods. Just look at Whole Foods.

It is not the job of government or any tax system to encourage two retailers to have the same prices.
 
And all under the guise of "fairness" to brick and mortar stores. What a crock of crap!
 
Zarathustra[H];1038351813 said:
Firstly, Gas/Diesel taxes don't fully cover the costs of road infrastructure.

They have a major distribution center in Goodyear AZ, with lots of employees (yes, they play employment taxes for this, but that doesn't cover all the costs either)

They also enjoy legal protections enforced by local authorities when anything goes wrong, (theft, fraud, lawsuits, trademark infringements etc.) Police (state and local) and court systems are not cheap.

Don't get me wrong. I think the sales tax system is messed up and creates strange loopholes like this when people buy things from non-local establishments, but that shouldn't give Amazon the right to evade paying their fair share.

I mean these bastards have been tax dodging for ages. They even built their corporate headquarters in Luxembourg to avoid as many taxes as possible, and use unethical transfer pricing rules to circumvent the rest. (double Irish with a dutch sandwich anyone?)

Amazon is a leecher company, taking advantage of the markets sustained by tax dollars that you and I have to pay, but dodging and evading taxes at every turn they can on their own.

In a way, we are financing their business, whether we buy from them or not.

Why should I subsidize the business of millionaires and billionaires with my meager income check?

Amazon are the bad guys here, not the states. The states are just trying to fight for some fairness. I wish them luck, and hopefully Amazon's free loading days are over.
Click to expand...

You are looking at this all wrong. These are not taxes Amazon owes the state, these are taxes the state feels Amazon should have collected from AZ residents for them. Your arguments are pointless in this situation. Their is no free ride here. At best Amazon's only advantage over the B&M stores is the no sales tax. While B&M stores have convenience, being able to see the product, not paying shipping, ease of returns, and the other built in benefits of being local.

I am not really on Amazon's side on this one. They really do have an in state presence in AZ, and should prolly collect sales tax from AZ residents for the state. But not because of some mythical free ride.
 
BoogerBomb said:
Amazon is slowly killing brick and mortar stores. Brick and mortar stores have only become a mere storefront for Amazon. Right now Amazon has a competetive edge that b&m stores cannot match or compete with. They cannot undercut the cost of the product like Amazon can because they dont have the size advantage.

Brother-in-law and sister just bought a tv from Amazon since Amazon doesnt charge sales tax and that made the difference in price from local stores. Its that advantage that states will have to try and nullify to save local economies.
Click to expand...

if there was no sales tax, b&m would still suffer.. it may influence purchases, but in the end amazons lower overhead costs reflect in their prices, taxes do not. people are cheap, amazon competes in a model not like the B&M, you can say that b&m are a showroom for amazon, but where i live i have no b&m since circuit city left the scene.

taxes across the board are bad for the economy, but we need some. however sales tax is only one of many taxes that hurt brick and mortar store, fuel tax, property taxes and all the other various taxes affect retail, the price of milk, meat etc plays a role in the long run, you have to pay your employees enough for them to live on.

we have far too many taxes as it is, its bad for business as well as consumers. the way we are taxed creates an uneven effect.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
The lowest income earners pay a lot of tax. It's true that the lowest taxed brackets pay no income tax. They still pay a ton of sales, property, gas, payroll taxes and so on. Much more of their income is immediately subject to tax than that of wealthier individuals because of sales taxes alone which are highly regressive.
Click to expand...
Obviously the less money you have, the higher percent of your money goes to taxes. However the fed/state/county taxes everyone at the same rate, so there really isn't a point here? You feel that wealthier people should pay more sales tax, and the poor less? How about reducing the size and overhead of government which could reduce the need for such high taxes for everyone? Is that not a viable solution? In these times, everyone is trying to do more with less, except government. That's an issue.
 
Blakestr said:
Why? Because amazon doesn't have an antiquated business model, i.e., no middleman? Tell me, what makes the government entitled to tax revenue from amazon? Because it allows it to exist?
Click to expand...

Well actually, yes exactly. Since the government creates the corporation, it has a right to control it. The local distribution center in Arizona is surely an Arizona corporation.

(A related question is why the government gets to tax non-corporate natural human beings, when it did not create us.)

It's ironic that one does worse doing business in-state than out of state, as those can who are fortunate to live in a state without an Amazon local distribution center. Very anti-states-rights. But then real states rights would not have the Fed government creating a huge revenue drain by sucking so much money out of states, then dribbling it back to them as it sees fit.
 
Revdarian said:
Also as someone else stated, YOU ARE SUPPOSSED TO DECLARE YOUR PURCHASES AND PAY THE TAXES! (yes, even for out of state purchases, but people think that they don't have to and are the real tax evaders here, not Amazon).
Click to expand...

Isn't that the whole argument? People are irresponsible so the states are trying to hold Amazon responsible for this to squeeze money out of them. I mean this discussion could go on forever about who should owe the money. The easy thing is to say Amazon should have to be forced to add a state sales tax for all purchases in all states. It just seems like a finger pointing contest when I take a step back and look at things rationally.
 
p0lish said:
Obviously the less money you have, the higher percent of your money goes to taxes. However the fed/state/county taxes everyone at the same rate, so there really isn't a point here?
Click to expand...
Don't forget that income tax paid at the federal level (and some states) is taxed at progressively higher marginal rates.
p0lish said:
You feel that wealthier people should pay more sales tax, and the poor less?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that at all. There's no good way to have varying rates of sales tax for individuals. Wealthier people should pay more income tax and more capital gains tax. In my view, the highest brackets of income should be taxed upwards of 80%.
p0lish said:
How about reducing the size and overhead of government which could reduce the need for such high taxes for everyone? Is that not a viable solution? In these times, everyone is trying to do more with less, except government. That's an issue.
Click to expand...
Those are separate issues. Regardless of the size and scope of government you prefer, wealthier people should pay more tax. Your "solution" wouldn't address the problem of inequitable taxation.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
Wealthier people should pay more income tax and more capital gains tax. In my view, the highest brackets of income should be taxed upwards of 80%.
Click to expand...

What would be the incentive for wealthy people to stay in a country that taxes them 80% of their income?
 
The reason capital gains tax is lower is because that money has already been taxed. You've made money from a salary job, and invest that money into stocks/bonds/property. Should that investment be profitable, you are then taxed at a lower rate. These investments are not guaranteed like a salary from a position. There is a "gamble" that your investment returns nothing or loses some/all of its value. By providing a lower tax rate, there is more of an incentive to invest money that to sit on it collecting small interest.

Tax the richest at 80%? Seriously? Was that a typo? Life is built on incentives, take the incentives away and the money will follow. I won't even bother responding to your genocide comment, you should already be regretting that asinine statement.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Oh man, so convincing!
Click to expand...

No doubt! That will motivate today's high-inertia youth to go to a good school, study hard, get a good career, and work your ASS OFF to make something of yourself, only to have that taken away and given to some lazy schmuck who makes no effort to improve his condition and has the same quality of living you do.
 
Fucking figures I am moving from NY to AZ. I was looking forward to not having to deal with the sale tax gestapo.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
What would be the incentive for wealthy people to stay in a country that taxes them 80% of their income?
Click to expand...

Because America was at its highest point (50's/60's) when the top income tax bracket was ~90%? ... even with a number of Republicans in office like Eisenhower.

There was no real flight of capital. There would not be. Earning up to X dollars is still taxed as normal, and the top tax bracket adjusted for inflation would be incredibly high now. Only your earnings over the 10 million mark would be taxed at 90%. So you'd make like $6-7 mil or something with deductions on the $10 mil and then your 11th million would have 900k go to taxes, you'd take home 100k of that on top of your $6-7 mil.

More importantly though, consumption taxes (sales tax etc) cause a decrease in aggregate demand, which is the driving force in modern American capitalism. Without constantly increasing aggregate demand, the engine dies like in the 20's/30's. This is why it's important to have a little inflation, encourage consumption, and tax income, especially investment income. This is also why you see "cheating" by an increase in debt-fueled consumer growth that front-loads demand and bubbling. It's endemic to the system, not something that will be overcome by any political policy.

A more progressive and stratified tax system also does not take anything away from people who succeed. Tax revenue from Eisenhower era went into our interstate road network, and the Mercury and Apollo programs. Much later, we then developed the space shuttle program which in its entirety is hands down the single greatest engineering effort mankind has undertaken and succeeded.

Taxing internet sales is a giant waste of time. It complicates everything immeasurably; Arizona just wants money.
 
InternationalHat said:
Because America was at its highest point (50's/60's) when the top income tax bracket was ~90%? ... even with a number of Republicans in office like Eisenhower.

There was no real flight of capital. There would not be. Earning up to X dollars is still taxed as normal, and the top tax bracket adjusted for inflation would be incredibly high now. Only your earnings over the 10 million mark would be taxed at 90%. So you'd make like $6-7 mil or something with deductions on the $10 mil and then your 11th million would have 900k go to taxes, you'd take home 100k of that on top of your $6-7 mil.

More importantly though, consumption taxes (sales tax etc) cause a decrease in aggregate demand, which is the driving force in modern American capitalism. Without constantly increasing aggregate demand, the engine dies like in the 20's/30's. This is why it's important to have a little inflation, encourage consumption, and tax income, especially investment income. This is also why you see "cheating" by an increase in debt-fueled consumer growth that front-loads demand and bubbling. It's endemic to the system, not something that will be overcome by any political policy.

A more progressive and stratified tax system also does not take anything away from people who succeed. Tax revenue from Eisenhower era went into our interstate road network, and the Mercury and Apollo programs. Much later, we then developed the space shuttle program which in its entirety is hands down the single greatest engineering effort mankind has undertaken and succeeded.

Taxing internet sales is a giant waste of time. It complicates everything immeasurably; Arizona just wants money.
Click to expand...

During that time the revenues/GDP were about the same as they are now.
So the higher brackets did not correspond to higher revenues.

The reality is that high taxes do not get paid.
Why, then, should we consent to higher taxes if they have little impact on revenue?
 
Zangmonkey said:
During that time the revenues/GDP were about the same as they are now.
So the higher brackets did not correspond to higher revenues.

The reality is that high taxes do not get paid.
Why, then, should we consent to higher taxes if they have little impact on revenue?
Click to expand...

The burden has been highly shifted to middle income families now for income tax revenue. Even with heavily deducted revenues, in the 50's the higher income stratas paid closer to 50-60% total taxes which is much more than now.

The current tax system is oligarchical and exploitative. It subsidizes those who make the most and benefits their interests.
 
InternationalHat said:
The burden has been highly shifted to middle income families now for income tax revenue. Even with heavily deducted revenues, in the 50's the higher income stratas paid closer to 50-60% total taxes which is much more than now.

The current tax system is oligarchical and exploitative. It subsidizes those who make the most and benefits their interests.
Click to expand...

Without agreeing to your contention, why is it a better solution to *increase* the rate of the top bracket rather than to *lower* the rate of the middle-class bracket?
 
bboynitrous said:
Isn't that the whole argument? People are irresponsible so the states are trying to hold Amazon responsible for this to squeeze money out of them. I mean this discussion could go on forever about who should owe the money. The easy thing is to say Amazon should have to be forced to add a state sales tax for all purchases in all states. It just seems like a finger pointing contest when I take a step back and look at things rationally.
Click to expand...

You can try to get them to add that from a point forward, if your state has a single ammount of sales tax (it doesn't vary by county), and amazon has a physical presence.

What you can't do, and what arizona is trying to do, is to say "OHH, halos! since people hasn't been adding online purchases properly for the last 4 years, we are gonna make a law to force you to collect them sales taxes, and also, we are billing you retroactively for the sales taxes we think people never paid and you werent suppossed to be collecting!"

I mean, seriously, do their economic department knows jack squat about laws and how you can't use them retroactively? didn't they pass this even for a second through the legal department?... this bill will be thrown out the second an even headed judge takes a look at it, just like it happened on the other amazon case.
 
I'm surprised nobody mentioned (or I missed it in all of the entertaining back and forth) how Amazon is in FAVOR of Federal legislation to end the current dysfunctional setup. Or maybe folks didn't get a chance to read the original article.

In any event, it seems Arizona's taking its approach in the hopes of wringing some sort of concession out of Amazon (similar to what California and Texas did). That's the problem with trying to do this on a state-by-state basis - you get anarchy and a forum thread like this one every few months. Let's just resolve this dispute one way or another across the country, get a massive amount of yelling and screaming done, and move on.
 
LhasaCM said:
I'm surprised nobody mentioned (or I missed it in all of the entertaining back and forth) how Amazon is in FAVOR of Federal legislation to end the current dysfunctional setup. Or maybe folks didn't get a chance to read the original article.
Click to expand...
The anti corporation hippies were too busy sharpening their pitchforks and lighting torches to consider such trivial facts.
 
Monkey God said:
The anti corporation hippies were too busy sharpening their pitchforks and lighting torches to consider such trivial facts.
Click to expand...

Nor could the pro-corporation fat cats or the tax-loving socialsts or the tax-hating heartless bastards...but I digress.

So, to sum up, I think we can all agree on the following if we step back to think about it:
1. Arizona's method here is stupid
2. Amazon is following the law
3. The law is wacky, though
4. Amazon would like to change the law at a national level so that they can stop dealing with what results from this particular wackiness.
 
LhasaCM said:
Nor could the pro-corporation fat cats or the tax-loving socialsts or the tax-hating heartless bastards...but I digress.

So, to sum up, I think we can all agree on the following if we step back to think about it:
1. Arizona's method here is stupid
2. Amazon is following the law
3. The law is wacky, though
4. Amazon would like to change the law at a national level so that they can stop dealing with what results from this particular wackiness.
Click to expand...

And yet some people still think Amazon is the great Satan. How can you have an intelligent debate with someone with that sort of world-view?
 
Monkey God said:
And yet some people still think Amazon is the great Satan. How can you have an intelligent debate with someone with that sort of world-view?
Click to expand...

Amazon is doing what any rational business would do - maximize profit. In the current landscape, as much as they're having to pay lawyers to deal with state-specific claims/filings/etc., it's cheaper for them to put into place the infrastructure to collect sales tax where necessary provided that the legal hurdles are overcome. (Can you imagine if Amazon voluntarily collected sales tax in states where they're not obligated to do so? The horror!) Hence the desire for national legislation.

And, if they can also make a buck in charging Marketplace vendors for the use of their infrastructure in collecting the sales tax...all the better.
 
so how long till amazon moves to mexico?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top