WBurchnall
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,622
Zarathustra[H];1038351765 said:
Edited for truth.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Arizona Wants $53M From Amazon In Sales Tax
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Edited for truth.
1. Other states have already done this, and more will until a common (i.e., national) solution can be implemented.
2. For the number and types of transactions Amazon conducts, moving to Mexico would be far more costly than employing lawyers to deal with the states on these issues. Besides, they would still retain a presence in the US in some fashion, and that would still be subject to the same ham-handed attempts at addressing a real problem.
WBurchnall
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,622
Don't worry guys. This $53 million dollars is totally fair and I am sure it'll go towards a good cause. It'll put us 1%* towards completion of Newt Gingrich's 'Moon Base' every year of his eight years he's planning to be president for. 
*Not counting that the moon base will run 400% over budget
*Not counting that the moon base will run 400% over budget
OK...I feel like I'm banging my head into a brick wall each time this topic comes up, but I'll say it anyway.
Amazon not collecting sales tax does NOT necessarily mean you do not owe tax on the purchase. Some states have a "use" tax that is meant to mimic the sales tax, but is applied to out of state purchases brought back into the state and consumed. It only applies to the extent that the original purchase was not taxed.
For example, say I live in State A with a sales/use tax of 5%. If I buy something in State B with a sales tax of 10%, I do not owe use tax. if I buy something in State C with a sales tax of 4%, I owe a use tax of 1%. If I buy something in State D (or online or in a catalog) and am not charged sales tax, I owe a use tax of 5%.
Not all taxes with a sales tax have a use tax, but many do. Now, it is administratively difficult for states to collect the use tax (a company with a physical presence in a state is legally required to collect sales tax from customers and remit those payments to the state; the use tax is filed by each individual), so it is either ignored or at best underrported.
So, by thanking Amazon for not collecting the tax, you (may, depending on your location) be thanking them for allowing you to break the law. Congratulations.
Zepher
[H]ipster Replacement
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2001
- Messages
- 20,927
Let's say I order a few things from amazon and each item ends up coming from 4 different distribution centers in different states with different tax rates. Do I end up paying 5 different tax rates? (5th one being my home state).
farscapesg1
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2004
- Messages
- 2,648
TL;DR whole thread...
My 2 cents though...
If a national law is passed to tax online purchases, fine. I can live with that. Going after a company/person for past taxes.. too bad. Should have been paying more attention in the first place.
Now, what I find more troublesome is the mentality that we need to keep throwing more and more money to state/national government. Because they have been so successful in budgetting in the past, right? What is that saying about doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? Prove you can balance with what you have and then I'll be more receptive to your request for more money. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a "rainy day fund" either. Since government doesn't tithe (for example, since I don't either), take that 10% off the top and put it into savings bucket each year. When you can't make the budget work a couple years from now you have a small pool to draw the extra funds from. Do your job right and in 10 years everyone could skip paying all their taxes for one year and you could cover it instead
Just like my brother who has come to me a couple times over the years asking to borrow money. First, I don't do loans because that puts a "you still owe me" stress on family relationships, so I tried just giving him money. The third time he asked, I told him it was under the condition that he gives me a copy of his bank statement, we worked out a budget together, he gave me his bank statements for the next two months to show he was making an effort to follow the budget, and I gave him a copy of Financial Peace to read and discuss over the first month. I don't agree with everything Dave Ramsey spouts, but the underlying premise works, and seemed to work for my brother also. He hasn't asked for another loan in 3 years and is financially doing a lot better now that he knows where his money is going ahead of time and taken more responsibility for his finances, career, and life in general. The same premise can work for government.
As to the usual rich vs poor (us vs them) arguments that always arise, I personally find it immoral to expect those better off to support those with less. Progressive taxation is rediculous. I'm all for making sure everyone pays their taxes, but the idea that those who make more need to be taxed at a higher bracket, just because they make more, is silly. One flat rate, across the board, with exemptions for those at or below the standard of living. The rich will still pay more than the middle class, just at the same percentage rate. The rich will also buy more expensive items, travel more, etc. and pay extra taxes that way also.
Considering Amazon is on the record as supporting national standardization for online retail taxation, instead of the states trying to go after the companies one-by-one wouldn't their time be better spent working on creating and passing that law?
My 2 cents though...
If a national law is passed to tax online purchases, fine. I can live with that. Going after a company/person for past taxes.. too bad. Should have been paying more attention in the first place.
Now, what I find more troublesome is the mentality that we need to keep throwing more and more money to state/national government. Because they have been so successful in budgetting in the past, right? What is that saying about doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? Prove you can balance with what you have and then I'll be more receptive to your request for more money. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a "rainy day fund" either. Since government doesn't tithe (for example, since I don't either), take that 10% off the top and put it into savings bucket each year. When you can't make the budget work a couple years from now you have a small pool to draw the extra funds from. Do your job right and in 10 years everyone could skip paying all their taxes for one year and you could cover it instead
Just like my brother who has come to me a couple times over the years asking to borrow money. First, I don't do loans because that puts a "you still owe me" stress on family relationships, so I tried just giving him money. The third time he asked, I told him it was under the condition that he gives me a copy of his bank statement, we worked out a budget together, he gave me his bank statements for the next two months to show he was making an effort to follow the budget, and I gave him a copy of Financial Peace to read and discuss over the first month. I don't agree with everything Dave Ramsey spouts, but the underlying premise works, and seemed to work for my brother also. He hasn't asked for another loan in 3 years and is financially doing a lot better now that he knows where his money is going ahead of time and taken more responsibility for his finances, career, and life in general. The same premise can work for government.
As to the usual rich vs poor (us vs them) arguments that always arise, I personally find it immoral to expect those better off to support those with less. Progressive taxation is rediculous. I'm all for making sure everyone pays their taxes, but the idea that those who make more need to be taxed at a higher bracket, just because they make more, is silly. One flat rate, across the board, with exemptions for those at or below the standard of living. The rich will still pay more than the middle class, just at the same percentage rate. The rich will also buy more expensive items, travel more, etc. and pay extra taxes that way also.
Considering Amazon is on the record as supporting national standardization for online retail taxation, instead of the states trying to go after the companies one-by-one wouldn't their time be better spent working on creating and passing that law?
Currently, since Amazon does not collect sales tax, you would be subject to use tax in the 5th state if it applies.
In the future, if Amazon begins to collect sales tax, it would presumably be based on the delivery address. (I guess you could base it on the billing address.) Since the sale didn't occur in the state of the distribution center, it would be odd/difficult to apply it there. Kind of depends on how any legislation is written, however.
Well, there are two different types of "going after past taxes." Past taxes that a company or person was legally obligated to pay - throw the book at them. Past taxes that should've been collected elsewhere that you're now trying to get more conveniently? Too bad, so sad. You can rewrite the law to affect the past.
Now, what I find more troublesome is the mentality that we need to keep throwing more and more money to state/national government. Because they have been so successful in budgetting in the past, right? What is that saying about doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? Prove you can balance with what you have and then I'll be more receptive to your request for more money. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a "rainy day fund" either. Since government doesn't tithe (for example, since I don't either), take that 10% off the top and put it into savings bucket each year. When you can't make the budget work a couple years from now you have a small pool to draw the extra funds from. Do your job right and in 10 years everyone could skip paying all their taxes for one year and you could cover it instead
That's a separate but related issue. Really, what we need to do as a society is answer a few basic questions:
1. What do we want government to do?
2. How much does that cost?
3. How do we raise the money to pay for it?
Starting with the premise that "I don't want to pay taxes" or "the government is corrupt" or "raise more money" dodges the more fundamental underlying issue. Studies have shown that most people are against government spending, generically. However, when confronted with specific questions of "do you want to cut this?" the majority of folks say no. In other words, nobody wants to pay anything, but they don't want to lose any service either. It's hard to reconcile those two positions.
Yes, in the presence of rational discourse, the same premise can work for government (and in some areas does work). However, we do not have that type of environment right now. A more applicable (but completely made-up and kind of a stretch) example is you order a set of services costing $1,000, and then you only find $900 in your wallet. You remember that John should've paid you $100, but he's out of the country, so instead you go to the store where he always buys electronics and try to get the $100 out of them. The store is reasonably upset, but you're still short $100. Now...should you have ordered $1,000 in services to begin with? Questionable...but now that you have, what do you do?
It's an interesting debate. Personally, I'm in favor of progressive taxation just because it's easier for those who have money to get a higher rate of return on their money, and therefore over time will gain more (on a percentage basis) than those at the lower of the spectrum, all else equal. Therefore, applying the same percentage across the board doesn't meet my concept of fairness. But I can see the other point. In any event, an argument only "works" if all income is treated the same - you need to look at ALL taxes and not just the income tax or the sales tax or payroll taxes in isolation.
Yes...but that would require getting folks on two sides of an aisle to agree, when it's in their best interest to not agree because of the current political landscape.
Some have garnish proof income, the reason it's garnish proof is the same reason they don't pay income taxes on it, it's cause they get too little to begin with and they barely survive as it is.
Yeah some want something for nothing, nothing except the air one breathes is Free anymore.
The guy might owe one $100, just cause the guy goes to a store and buys stuff there does mean they owe You $100, that will never work.
Agreed, a flat tax, if that is what Yer saying is only fair for those with higher incomes.
Some are just delusional and should be locked up for their own good, businessmen don't always have translatable skills, take Cain for example, a small time businessman, My Grandpa could have run rings around Him in Politics, But then My Grandpa was a City Councilman and before that a Police Chief...
Zarathustra[H];1038351813 said:
The buyer is responsible for paying taxes not the seller when it comes to online sales. You pay those taxes with your state income taxes. Some states differ and require the online merchant to collect the tax but as far as I know it is only required when the online sales company and the buyer are both in the same state.
You don't seem to get the illegal part of retroactivity?
That is what pissed Amazon off, as someone else pointed out, they are pro standarized taxing, but asking them to pay for something that isn't their fault is bullcrap pure and simple.