Group Seeks Amazon Boycott Over Sales Tax Fight

Crucible1001 said:
Actually, I get a Large cheese pizza from Dominios for 5.99. I use the coupon code FIVEOFF. It does not work in all areas, and pricing does vary. Add in DRINKS for two free 20 ounce drinks, and EBCS for free cinnastix, and EBE-LCC for 2 free lava cakes and I am set. So yeah, large cheese pizza, 2 20oz drinks, cinnastix, and 2 lava cakes for 5.99 + tax. I order this once a week at least and have for the last 6 months. You just have to know how to work the system.
Click to expand...

So you're fat, nice to know.
 
My problem with this is that it puts local brick and mortar businesses at a REAL disadvantage. The rules simply need to be even. You can yell at states to cut the fat but state and local governments have been cutting like crazy over the last few years and there's a lot of blow back coming out of that. Bigger class sizes, library closings, salaries of cops are being frozen and a lot of the unemployment numbers have been driven by local and state layoffs.

I really don't know why people are so angry with government these days. A lot of people working especially at the state and local level have some crappy jobs that don't pay shit and yeah, we need people to pick up garbage and run the jails and fix the roads and sewers and that costs money.

It's like people want all of this stuff and don't want to pay for ANYTHING anymore. It's pretty damn silly, but yeah, let blame politicians, because well, yeah, anyone can do their jobs. Taking all the bitching 24 hours a day with little thanks and people who will have a cow when their service or program is cut.
 
heatlesssun said:
My problem with this is that it puts local brick and mortar businesses at a REAL disadvantage. The rules simply need to be even.
Click to expand...
Still doesn't change the fact that the state should not (given past court cases) have the power to force an out of state retailer to collect sales tax on its behalf.

Also with respect to schools, if a community cares that much about its schools (obviously depending on state laws), they can and likely will support their schools. My town passed a referendum to go over the state property tax cap to support the school. Then again this was also due to a problem with school budget law (the fund used to pay teachers only comes from the state or referendum taxes).
 
The only reason this is actually being supported, and probably funded through shell companies like the tea party is, by ANY lawmaker or corporate brick and mortar entity is because no one has gone back through the last 50 years and started charging these skumbags for adverse laws or policies they enacted or profited from that have directly led to the collapse of the California economy and their current debt woes. No tax abiding citizen is responsible for any of this.

If anything, every citizen in the United States should be DEMANDING charges and fines against all past politicians and corporate entities who have basically stolen or been responsible for the theft by relaxing laws, paying kickbacks for tax exemptions, or profiting in any way shape or form from such instances.. I dont care if they are retired or dead, sue the living piss out of their family estates bought and paid for on OUR dime since they are all public officials or linked to public officials who we all KNOW are more slippery than anyone labeled a terrorist.

No one cares about amazon fighting this law except those looking to protect their own asses, profits and the pitiful thieving legacies almost 100% of them have.
 
kirtar said:
Still doesn't change the fact that the state should not (given past court cases) have the power to force an out of state retailer to collect sales tax on its behalf.
Click to expand...

Legality notwithstanding its a technicality that puts a local brick and mortar stores at a disadvantage and the law should not pick winner and losers based on physical presence as most states already require tax payers to pay the sales tax on out of state purchases but states aren't going after taxpayers mostly as that would surely not be politically popular.

The bottom line is that Amazon and other eTailers, as much as I like them are gaming the system not for their customer's benefit but for their own.
 
heatlesssun said:
I really don't know why people are so angry with government these days.
Click to expand...
I think everyone is disgusted with the corruption in the legislative branch of the federal government, and to a lesser degree, the executive branch. Everyone else is mostly cool, but people are quick to lump them all together.

This an unfortunate situation for the arms of government that actually get shit done (fire departments, honest cops, building inspectors, DOT, HHS, OSHA, CDC, etc.)
 
heatlesssun said:
Legality notwithstanding its a technicality that puts a local brick and mortar stores at a disadvantage and the law should not pick winner and losers based on physical presence as most states already require tax payers to pay the sales tax on out of state purchases but states aren't going after taxpayers mostly as that would surely not be politically popular.

The bottom line is that Amazon and other eTailers, as much as I like them are gaming the system not for their customer's benefit but for their own.
Click to expand...

By your logic, chinese companies should be paying everyone money for being able to make items for lower cost, and U.S based companies should be paying the U.K because the taxes in the U.S are lower.

Not owning property in a state isn't "a technicality". I don't have to pay taxes to California because I don't fucking live there, Amazon shouldn't have to either.
 
wizdum said:
By your logic, chinese companies should be paying everyone money for being able to make items for lower cost, and U.S based companies should be paying the U.K because the taxes in the U.S are lower.

Not owning property in a state isn't "a technicality". I don't have to pay taxes to California because I don't fucking live there, Amazon shouldn't have to either.
Click to expand...

Again, tax payers in most states are required to pay the sales tax on out of state purchases shipped to their residence.
 
Brick and mortar don't have a shipping cost added on. That's their advantage. They are also convenient and easy to get to something fast. They aren't at a severe disadvantage at all. It's the brick and mortars who sell everything overpriced that are having a tough time (CompUSSR and Circuit city anyone?). Same goes for other overpriced e-stores, who can't compete with Amazon. Other brick and mortars that sell at reasonable prices are doing just fine.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037637160 said:
On the other hand, these small taxes on each item add up in value over millions of transactions to actually amount to a real amount of money that can pay for services that government needs to provide for a society to function./QUOTE]Would that be before or after they've squandered it or given it to their political pals? Government needs to learn to make the most out of what they get, not be rewarded for poor business management (and government should be run as a business...a WELL RUN business). If our tax dollars (anywhere) were used as they should be, they could be REDUCED by a fair amount. If you or I ran a business like the government is run...we'd be imprisoned for embezzlement, among a host of other criminal charges.
Click to expand...
 
There's something seriously wrong when there's more money going into the prison system than the school system. I've lived in California my entire life and I'd just like to say that most of the people are alright in my book. It's just that there are enough people to fuck things up for everyone else.

I'll be damned if those "nonprofit groups" actually represent local businesses and not money-grubbing corporations. Big chain stores like Target, Walmart, and Best Buy cause much more harm to local businesses than etailers.

Also, I didn't vote for Brown. I had a gut feeling that something ridiculous like this would happen.
 
heatlesssun said:
Again, tax payers in most states are required to pay the sales tax on out of state purchases shipped to their residence.
Click to expand...

We understand that. But it does not change the fact that Cali, not Amazon, needs to collect the tax from it's citizens. Politicaly unpopular or not, it is not Amazon's problem.
 
heatlesssun said:
Again, tax payers in most states are required to pay the sales tax on out of state purchases shipped to their residence.
Click to expand...

If we want to get technical about it, it's usually a "use" tax instead of a sales tax. Either way that still adds nothing to the argument. Even if someone required to pay a use tax, the burden of doing so falls on the taxpayer and not the merchants.

You might call it a technicality, but forcing Amazon to collect sales tax when they have no physical presence in the state is an attempt at regulating interstate commerce. That power belongs to Congress alone.
 
I'm old enough to remember when catalogs were used just as much as the internet is today, to purchase things like clothing, and Christmas items. My parents used catalogs extensively. We used to get tons of them in the mail. And most of them were sales tax exempt. Did people have a problem with this? No. It was the law. (Actually, I'm sure someone had a problem with it. There's always someone that doesn't like something, no matter what it is. If someone said, World peace would be wonderful! Someone else would scream, but it would hurt us too much!!)

Flash forward 30 years. The catalog is now the internet. Actually, many companies STILL use physical catalogs, but also have internet sites. (which brings up the issue... if they order from catalogs, you're ok with it being exempt? So I'll just order from them!) And all of a sudden, people have a problem with sales tax not being collected.

Maybe I should just go back to using catalogs?
 
GORANKAR said:
We understand that. But it does not change the fact that Cali, not Amazon, needs to collect the tax from it's citizens. Politicaly unpopular or not, it is not Amazon's problem.
Click to expand...

Then it shouldn't be a brick and mortars store's problem to collect sale tax either. It's the disparity between local and online merchants that causes me the problem. And it's perfectly clear why Amazon is fighting this, to maintain an advantage it has over local competitors.
 
defunctdoormat said:
Did people have a problem with this? No. It was the law. (Actually, I'm sure someone had a problem with it. There's always someone that doesn't like something, no matter what it is. If someone said, World peace would be wonderful! Someone else would scream, but it would hurt us too much!!)
Click to expand...
National Bellas Hess v. Illinois (or alternatively v. Department of Revenue) and Quill Corp. v. North Dakota

Yeah someone had a problem with it.
 
heatlesssun said:
Then it shouldn't be a brick and mortars store's problem to collect sale tax either. It's the disparity between local and online merchants that causes me the problem. And it's perfectly clear why Amazon is fighting this, to maintain an advantage it has over local competitors.
Click to expand...

States do have the power to regulate intrastate commerce. You are comparing two completely different scenarios.
 
kirtar said:
States do have the power to regulate intrastate commerce. You are comparing two completely different scenarios.
Click to expand...

The only significant difference is the physical presence of the seller, other than almost everything else is the same.
 
JokerCPoC said:
Like how?

Name one legal way to do this...
Click to expand...

States to have the right to flat out ban the sale of things. A good example is synthetic marijuana. Still legal federally and could be sold by Amazon to certain states however a state can tell Amazon not to allow it sale in a state where it's illegal but can't legally tell Amazon to tax a legal product like a TV.

I simply don't like the inconsistencies in all of this, they are glaring and they simply need to be corrected on way or another.
 
heatlesssun said:
States to have the right to flat out ban the sale of things. A good example is synthetic marijuana. Still legal federally and could be sold by Amazon to certain states however a state can tell Amazon not to allow it sale in a state where it's illegal but can't legally tell Amazon to tax a legal product like a TV.

I simply don't like the inconsistencies in all of this, they are glaring and they simply need to be corrected on way or another.
Click to expand...

If It's legal to sell a hard drive or a pc radiator for water cooling in CA, then It can not be banned from being sold to CA residents by out of state and/or online retailers, that would be unfair restraint of trade and since buying PC parts for do it Yerself PCs are a niche market, It's online and mostly out of state, so charging tax by an out of state retailer can't be done as how would You compel them do so? Don't like It? I don't care, I buy where Its cheaper to do so at and that isn't always out of state, I bought a case fan from Newegg($23.58 total, fan $21.99, this includes tax[$1.59] and shipping to Me[FREE]), It saved Me $3.85 over one from an online retailer who has them listed for $19.99 online, but when ordering one It was out of stock, transaction cancelled as I just ordered 1. CA has no authority beyond the state line/border to compel sales tax enforcement, no matter how many laws the stupid greedy legislature writes. Anyone who says they do is delusional and a liar, Only the US Congress has this power, not the states who are not countries as their not sovereign as that was given up when states joined the USA.
 
Just kinda bemused by the whole issue. The whole thing is swirling down the bowl. People want services from the state but they don't want to pay tax. People is everyone...businesses want redevelopment dollars, the middle class wants education, the poor want social services, hell here even illegal immigrants demand money, and get it. But then everyone turns around and says the state spends too much, it's absurd. People literally vote on the same form to cap taxes, and to spend $10 billion on a high speed rail line that will have to cross two mountain ranges and 250 miles of diddly squat, knowing in advance that a Southwest ticket will still be faster and cheaper.

So yeah, who cares.
 
Azhar said:
I'm not sure about that. The government needs to learn to budget with what money they have, and they need to stop giving massive tax breaks to the rich - particularly the super-rich - if they need money so badly. (Did you know that Warren Buffet only paid 17% of his total taxable income last year?)

Getting us out of the recession would require more people giving money into the economy, not the government.

Now if you had said paying taxes through retailers might help the national and state debt and the deficit, then yeah it would a little.

Did I get this right? Accounting makes my head hurt.
Click to expand...

if we took ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the "super rich" people's money, it wouldn't even cover 10% of what we spend in a year. You think taking the tax breaks away is going to make some sort of massive difference?

I'm more worried about corporations getting huge tax breaks and the 48% of the population (reasonably, more like 20% due to age, etc) that doesn't pay A DIME of taxes.
 
heatlesssun said:
Then it shouldn't be a brick and mortars store's problem to collect sale tax either. It's the disparity between local and online merchants that causes me the problem. And it's perfectly clear why Amazon is fighting this, to maintain an advantage it has over local competitors.
Click to expand...

I can understand that reasoning. Cali still has no business trying to regulate interstate commerce. The representatives of Cali can bring this up in the US House and Senate.

I don't really consider brick and mortars to be at that much of a disadvantage over sales tax compared to, e-tailers use of just in time freight, direct shipping from the manufacturers, larger selection than B&M, and shopping in my boxers just to name a few.

Of course B&M's have advantages as well. Get it right now, actually get to see product, ease of returns, sales staff to answer questions, and the like.
 
w00t69 said:
if we took ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the "super rich" people's money, it wouldn't even cover 10% of what we spend in a year. You think taking the tax breaks away is going to make some sort of massive difference?

I'm more worried about corporations getting huge tax breaks and the 48% of the population (reasonably, more like 20% due to age, etc) that doesn't pay A DIME of taxes.
Click to expand...
That' 48% also does 99% of the real labor. A lot of the reason people are in that 48% (aside from the horrifically fallacious counting of children, the elderly, and the infirm) is because of the federal breeding subsidy.

Just because someone doesn't pay taxes doesn't mean they don't make this country tick. The commentators who keep spewing this "48%" number are the same ones who benefit from the labor of those people.

Imagine living in this country if you removed everyone who made less than $60,000 and had kids. Do you think we might notice a difference in our way of life?

Perhaps you should consider giving them a break, since they're the ones that do all the work. They are creating wealth and tax revenue, but it's for the people above them who complain about how all the people working for them aren't paying taxes. Indirectly, they're paying more than their fair share.
 
fattypants said:
They are creating wealth and tax revenue, but it's for the people above them who complain about how all the people working for them aren't paying taxes. Indirectly, they're paying more than their fair share.
Click to expand...

Also these people are the ones that SPEND money and buy things like cars, houses, etc. Taxing this group more would simply take more money out of their pockets and they would have less to spend on the things that make rich people rich.

In all of the talk in cutting federal spending FEW people are really considering WHO actually benefits from the social welfare state. Sure they like to pick on the welfare mommas and the like, but ultimately this money benefits the RICH! Just think about how hard hit doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies would be hit if Medicare and Medicaid simply disappeared.

The people that ULTIMATELY benefit the most from the social safety net aren't the poor but the rich.
 
heatlesssun said:
Also these people are the ones that SPEND money and buy things like cars, houses, etc. Taxing this group more would simply take more money out of their pockets and they would have less to spend on the things that make rich people rich.

In all of the talk in cutting federal spending FEW people are really considering WHO actually benefits from the social welfare state. Sure they like to pick on the welfare mommas and the like, but ultimately this money benefits the RICH! Just think about how hard hit doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies would be hit if Medicare and Medicaid simply disappeared.

The people that ULTIMATELY benefit the most from the social safety net aren't the poor but the rich.
Click to expand...

Well lets see, I get SSI and I'm disabled, unable to work(I did ask around, private industry won't even touch Me, says I'm not employable), I'm barely able to do simple tasks, I'm 51yrs old, male and white. I either overheat or after a bit My joints become inflamed with pain, some of the pain is from arthritis and some was induced when I had broken the left leg and dislocated the right hip in 2002(I had to do My own rehab for My left foot as the ankle was where 3 Titanium screws were inserted at, a good deal of painful stretching was done by Me while in bed at night over 3 months or so, It's never going to be as good as It was before, But at least It's not as stiff as It used to be), It's the gift that keeps on giving, that You'd wish would just go away. As You say I'm a vital piece of the economy, I think some want to tamper with what they do not understand and despise out of a lack of compassion, jealousy, ignorance, fear and simple hate of someone different from them...
 
Amazon does everything in their power to NOT pay sales tax to the gov. Unless they law changes (and it should), Amazon will not ever voluntarily give in.
 
Staples said:
Amazon does everything in their power to NOT pay sales tax to the gov. Unless they law changes (and it should), Amazon will not ever voluntarily give in.
Click to expand...

Why should they give in? It's in their best interest to keep prices low for customers in order to stay competitive. Don't forget that it's not just Amazon. Any etailer without a physical presence in a particular state is not required by law to collect sales tax for orders placed within that state. There's a part in the annual tax returns that asks for "use tax". It's the responsibility of the people to report their use tax and the state to enforce the use tax, not Amazon's. How many people actually report their use tax? Well, that's a different story and not what these groups are lobbying for.
 
w4ffles said:
Why should they give in? It's in their best interest to keep prices low for customers in order to stay competitive. Don't forget that it's not just Amazon. Any etailer without a physical presence in a particular state is not required by law to collect sales tax for orders placed within that state. There's a part in the annual tax returns that asks for "use tax". It's the responsibility of the people to report their use tax and the state to enforce the use tax, not Amazon's. How many people actually report their use tax? Well, that's a different story and not what these groups are lobbying for.
Click to expand...

Not everyone can file a tax return, I'm not allowed by the SSA to do so as I don't have any taxable income.
 
fattypants said:
That' 48% also does 99% of the real labor. A lot of the reason people are in that 48% (aside from the horrifically fallacious counting of children, the elderly, and the infirm) is because of the federal breeding subsidy.

Just because someone doesn't pay taxes doesn't mean they don't make this country tick. The commentators who keep spewing this "48%" number are the same ones who benefit from the labor of those people.

Imagine living in this country if you removed everyone who made less than $60,000 and had kids. Do you think we might notice a difference in our way of life?

Perhaps you should consider giving them a break, since they're the ones that do all the work. They are creating wealth and tax revenue, but it's for the people above them who complain about how all the people working for them aren't paying taxes. Indirectly, they're paying more than their fair share.
Click to expand...
You're a socialist. We should just get rid of the income tax altogether. We didn't have one before 1913 and even then it was only supposed to be for a limited time and tax the top 1%.

The real problem is all the Federal government programs filled with subsidies and welfare programs that promote dependence on government and taxes. You change those things and you change the landscape for everyone.

I'm not super wealthy by any means and probably don't make as much as a lot people on these forums, but I certainly don't think we should take one group of peoples money that worked hard to get where they are and give it to another group that may or may not have worked hard. It's crap and creates class warfare.
 
pgwalsh said:
I'm not super wealthy by any means and probably don't make as much as a lot people on these forums, but I certainly don't think we should take one group of peoples money that worked hard to get where they are and give it to another group that may or may not have worked hard. It's crap and creates class warfare.
Click to expand...

What really creates class warfare are poor, hungry, homeless sick people. Our Laissez-faire no social safety net society failed spectacularly, i.e. Great Depression. The problem with limited government and no social safety net is how does a society not simply collapse when business fails on a large scale? Just grin and bear it isn't a workable solution in that too many things simply collapse with to great a retreat.

If an economy could run perpetually with no interruptions then sure government be damned. That's simply not how life works.
 
w4ffles said:
Why should they give in? It's in their best interest to keep prices low for customers in order to stay competitive.
Click to expand...
I am not saying they should give in, I am saying the law should be changed so every etailer in the US has to collect sales tax. Amazon has a long history of evasive behavior against collecting sales tax (because it is in their best interest) and not sure I am liking their new strategy of enraging the public to fight on their behalf. What I am saying is that people who think they are voluntarily going to give in are out of their mind. Amazon is the poster boy for sales tax evasion.
 
pgwalsh said:
You're a socialist. We should just get rid of the income tax altogether. We didn't have one before 1913 and even then it was only supposed to be for a limited time and tax the top 1%.

The real problem is all the Federal government programs filled with subsidies and welfare programs that promote dependence on government and taxes. You change those things and you change the landscape for everyone.

I'm not super wealthy by any means and probably don't make as much as a lot people on these forums, but I certainly don't think we should take one group of peoples money that worked hard to get where they are and give it to another group that may or may not have worked hard. It's crap and creates class warfare.
Click to expand...

You and any other person here wouldn't know a socialist from a hole in the ground, even if one waled right past You, So You'd cut elderly people, blind people and disabled people off just cause a trivial amount of money never sees Yer pocket? Lets see $60 odd billion a Year spent in a Trillion dollar economy, makes You sound like a cheapskate and a scofflaw, Oh and Social Security and the income tax are and have been Constitutional for over 76 Years, law of the land and an obligation which is not to be questioned, Only deadbeats do that. Most don't have families to fall back on and if they do, there is no room at the inn. So what do You suggest? Hmm? Putting people in Concentration Camps??? Oh and forget Charities, they either send money outside the USA or are too small with no hope of ever doing anything meaningful, but then Charities for disabled & blind people and the aged are a 19th century failure and having the states do this is not much better, Don't fix what works as Social means to interact and to not be alone, look It up Jerkwad...
 
pgwalsh said:
You're a socialist. We should just get rid of the income tax altogether. We didn't have one before 1913 and even then it was only supposed to be for a limited time and tax the top 1%.

The real problem is all the Federal government programs filled with subsidies and welfare programs that promote dependence on government and taxes. You change those things and you change the landscape for everyone.

I'm not super wealthy by any means and probably don't make as much as a lot people on these forums, but I certainly don't think we should take one group of peoples money that worked hard to get where they are and give it to another group that may or may not have worked hard. It's crap and creates class warfare.
Click to expand...

Oh and It does not say in the Constitution anything about time limits on income taxes, only that Congress has the power to levy such taxes and to say that Congress can delegate who collects taxes for Congress and the people of the USA, If there were supposed time limits they aren't in the constitution and were subject to change by Congress which can make laws at will as that's their job, their experts, ordinary people aren't and are out of their depth on this.

And so You attack those who have paid into the programs that support them for Years and so how is that not class warfare? What's next You start killing old, blind and disabled people?? NAZIs did that in Germany in the 1930's, read Yer History, Yer ignorance is starting to show.
 
On the radio, they're playing ads saying how signature gatherers are scam artists and shouldn't be trusted, just in time for Amazon to collect their signatures.

I would rather not pay Amazon sales taxes considering that they're at an advantage over other retailers and have them keep the companies they own in California than the alternative. Our state is hemmoraging jobs right now and needs to do something to retain these companies.
 
pgwalsh said:
You're a socialist. We should just get rid of the income tax altogether. We didn't have one before 1913 and even then it was only supposed to be for a limited time and tax the top 1%.

The real problem is all the Federal government programs filled with subsidies and welfare programs that promote dependence on government and taxes. You change those things and you change the landscape for everyone.

I'm not super wealthy by any means and probably don't make as much as a lot people on these forums, but I certainly don't think we should take one group of peoples money that worked hard to get where they are and give it to another group that may or may not have worked hard. It's crap and creates class warfare.
Click to expand...

Oh and one more thing, people in these welfare programs as It were at least aren't looking and competing for scarce jobs, So be quiet and very thankful...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top