Why Amazon is winning online retail and should fold on this silly sales tax fight

By | July 18, 2011, 5:00am PDT

Summary: Rather than fighting it out on a state-by-state basis, Amazon needs to man-up and do what’s right. Our IT jobs are at stake.

Dollar sign image courtesy Flickr user mikeporesky. Jeff Bezos image courtesy Amazon. Jerry Brown image courtesy State of California.

I am not your typical consumer. I don’t normally buy very much. Every few years, I’ll replace my suit and about twice a decade, my wife will decide my T-shirts are too ratty and she’ll replace them. I do buy some consumer electronics and computer parts, but I generally buy from Amazon or Newegg, and that’s about it.

But that’s changed recently.

Two projects have required me to do a lot of purchasing. We’re renovating our new house, so there’s a lot of house-related items we’ve needed to buy, from shelving systems to hot water heater expansion tanks. I’m also building a studio for the radio programs and TV work I do, so that’s necessitated buying a lot of custom lighting and sound management gear.

This has forced me to expand beyond the soft, warm, immediate gratification comfort of Amazon Prime. For those of you not familiar with it, Amazon Prime is a service you pay $80 a year for, and it gets you free two-day shipping or $3.99 overnight shipping. Not everything on Amazon is Prime eligible, but most of what my wife and I have bought has been.

The free shipping is a huge deal. We recently bought a headboard that, alone, would have cost over a hundred bucks to ship. With Amazon Prime, shipping was free. We often buy from Amazon first, before even checking with the local stores, because if Amazon has it, we don’t have to take the time to go to the local store. Since it’s free shipping, unless we need something perishable or now, Prime is the more optimal experience.

The other compelling advantage of Amazon is something I hadn’t really grokked until this round of project purchases. Amazon ships things to you when you order them. You generally know that if you order something, it’ll either be there tomorrow or the day after.

This, alone, is blowing away the other online retailers. I have been shocked at how long it takes to get products I’ve ordered from other places online. I ordered a set of cheap HDMI cables from a company who’s entire business is HDMI cables, and it took a week for them to process the order, before they even began the pick-pack-ship process.

I ordered a set of wire shelves from a company who’s primary business is selling wire shelves, and they can’t tell you either the status of your order or when you’ll get it. Generally, it takes about two-to-three weeks, but you never really know. Plus, the shipping costs are off the charts.

I ordered some studio equipment from a well-known online retailer in New York. Even though their Web site said everything was in stock, by the time they processed my order four days later, a few of the items were no longer in stock. They had no mechanism to cancel only part of the order, so I’m still waiting on a few items. The guy I talked to said they might arrive next week.

You can see why Amazon Prime is so compelling.

It’s now a default behavior for me to check if the product is sold and shipped by Amazon, before ordering anywhere else. It’s not really a price issue. I don’t mind spending five bucks more. I don’t even mind (as much) spending on shipping — although that can add up. What I mind is that many of Amazon’s competitors are taking days or even weeks to simply enter their order into their shipping system, and that’s before the wait for the shipping.

So, not only am I paying a lot more for the shipping, I’m waiting days to weeks for the privilege.

And this is why Amazon’s affiliate tax battle with the states is so silly.

First, let’s be clear: the states are all hurting. They’re not getting the financial help from the federal government they really need to provide basic services, and revenues from both income taxes and sales taxes are down. It’s not just the economy, but Amazon and other online retailers are changing purchasing patterns and more and more people are like me. We prefer the convenience and practicality of ordering online rather than trying to get to a local store.

See also: RIP: Borders Books

Because the states are so hungry, because they see Amazon as the bad guy for many of their tax revenue problems, they’re not going to give up. They see Amazon as stealing money from their states, money they need to provide services.

It may not happen this year, but it’s inevitable. Amazon is going to lose this war. Too much is at stake in each of the states, and the feds aren’t going to help. If Amazon goes to the federal government for a get-out-of-taxes free card, the feds will eventually figure out that if Amazon doesn’t provide tax revenue to the states, the U.S. Treasury will have to make up the difference.

Our congress critters may be childish and generally useless, but they do understand that it’s better for their careers to let the states raise taxes than to let their records show they raised taxes just to pay them out to the states.

Given that this is undoubtedly a lost cause for Amazon, and given that Amazon already has so many structural advantages (like shipping within, you know, a week) over their competitors, it’s time for Amazon to bite the bullet (and us, too) and pay sales tax.

Rather than fighting it out on a state-by-state basis, and yanking on the incomes of their affiliates while they’re doing it, Amazon needs to man-up and do what’s right.

None of us like taxes, but we do like roads, police, fire protection, and public schools. Those services don’t come for free.

By the way, if states don’t get enough revenue from sales tax, one way they’re able to save money is outsourcing jobs. Our IT jobs.

See also: Amazon Drops California In Growing E-Commerce Affiliate Tax Law War

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

137
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

tax cuts = tax spending
enovikoff 25th Apr
From the perspective of the federal budget, they are the same. I hate comparing the federal budget to a home budget, but it is useful in this case. If you go buy a car that has a payment of $500/mo, or your company cuts your pay by $500/mo, then the effect on you home budget is the same (ignoring tax effects.) Same with the fed: every dollar it doesn't take in from taxes is the same as spending another extra dollar. So a tax cut is the same thing as a tax expense to the government. This is why the Bush Tax Cuts are the single largest recurring expense the government has ever taken on.
Sales tax is one of the most regressive forms of tax, disproportionately affecting lower income consumers. Should Amazon "lose the battle" then the money comes out of our pockets, not theirs. If the states want to increase their tax revenues, they have a simple mechanism to do it: raise tax rates, then deal with the political consequences. They have chosen to avoid this and look for ways to "hide" the tax increase.

As for the Fed "get-out-of-taxes" card, it has already been played by the Supreme Court. The states may whine and try to circumvent the decision, but they run a real risk of being overruled once again in court. You paint the picture of an inevitable loss by Amazon and interstate retailers that has little basis in fact.

If the states want an interstate tax system, they have to go to the US Congress to get it, plain and simple. And given the conditions on Capitol Hill, they already know that is not going to get them what they want.
@terry flores
Amazon gets the benefit of a nearly 10% discount compared to the retail store up the street hiring your neighbors.

In California, there is a use tax. If I buy something from Amazon and I do not pay sales tax, I need to report the purchase and pay the 9.75% (LA) to the state when I file my income taxes.

Now, I'm paying attention to this and reporting everything, so I'm not saving any money for Amazon not charging me sales tax.

Amazon's only cost for collecting and paying sales tax is the administrative cost of figuring and applying the correct rate and filing correctly. Because they collect today and would pay about the 20th or 31st of the next month, they could get interest float.

Near as I can tell, the only reason Amazon wants to be sales tax free is so they have a price advantage over the brick and mortars, a price advantage that exists only because buyers don't understand the tax laws or are cheating.
@DannyO_0x98
The people demand there should be no more tax hikes!
This is what voters chose in 2010 and will demand again in2012.
We are taxed enough and the states should better eliminate sales tax altogether.
@Linux Geek

Taxed enough?! See that's the problem with this country. People want to take and take and take but when it's time to pay, they complain to no end. We have lower tax rates now then back in the 50's. Stop giving tax cuts (which is tax spending) to the rich!
@DannyO_0x98 Amazon also has to charge (or include) shipping costs that are not part of a local purchase. The two balance each other out. Local retailers are not looking for a "fair deal", they are looking for any advantage they can find against a retail model that has outpaced theirs in terms of profit and viability. And it isn't new, mail-order retailing has existed for over a century. But the internet has brought speed, convenience and variety to an industry that had been growing moribund.

Most importantly, it has brought a level of information to consumers that has undercut the basic tenets of retail merchandising. Retailers have long relied on ignorant consumers who could be distracted by flashy promotions and displays and drive impulse purchases. Now that consumers can educate themselves and shop in a much larger market, there are many traditional retailers who are just not competitive anymore, and deserve to fade away.
0 Votes
+ -
LinuxGeek should foad.
snoop0x7b 18th Jul
@Linux Geek: "The people" are stupid. "The people" would want to enjoy public education, parks, high quality water, and would like to pay 0$ for that. That isn't realistic.
@DannyO_0x98 Actually the cost to Amazon is huge much like any other business. Application of sales tax is one of the most complex financial activities in the retail business. For a company like Amazon it is a huge expense. Why? Let me give you a few examples:

1 - at random intervals and on random dates different states come up with sales tax holidays...who is to program Amazon software for that?
2 - in some states there is no sales tax...who is to program Amazon software for that?
3 - in a given state, different rates apply to different products...say New Jersey has no sales tax on clothing, but has sales tax on nails...who is to program Amazon software for that?
4 - in some states, same products but different type gets different rates...example...in North Caroline, cable above certain gauge has lower sales tax than cable below that gauge...who is to program Amazon systems for that?

This is just a short list from someone who had to deal with sales tax issues in enterprise systems before. What the states want is some more cashflow and the same government waste looking for the tax dollars also is not sensitive one single molecule to the cost it takes to accurately calculate, collect and deposit sales tax.
@DannyO_0x98 I'm betting you're one of the VERY few in California paying that 10%.
@Linux Geek No this isn't what the majority of voters chose. The so called elected officials you speak of are all for giving tax breaks to the rich and screwing the middle class over. I've seen the tea baggers. They aren't getting it on basic math.
@jmiller1978. Before you start increasing the tax on the "rich", start collecting taxes from the illegals. In 2009, the neighboring county started cracking down on illegals. Nearly 2000 of them dropped out of their county school and into the county schools where I live.

The published school budget broke it down to $13K/student. Or $26M increase because of the illegal migration. For every $3 spent on textbooks, we - the legal taxpayers - are 'privledged' to spend $8 on translation services and ESOL instruction.

And frankly, I'm fed up with having to spend and spend and spend to pay for people who are not paying into the system! The county Government has ignored the problem for so long, even county Government workers were arrested as part of an INS/ICE sting.
0 Votes
+ -
It's not that simple
stano360 23rd Apr
This isn't just Amazon, it's thousands of small retailers (like myself) where adding 40-60 hours of time each quarter is very, very significant. The "cost" is not that simple either, B&M has advantages as well, inventory cost is non-existent, it's already paid for by the B&M anything sold online is bonus. Local access, advertising built into the facility, credibility, etc.

I have no pity for the States, if they're anything like CA, they pissed most of the money away from the booms. It's funny, now they complain about Prop 13, silence when there were record housing prices. Where did all that money go? Oh, into more fat cat union salaries, that will never be cut.
0 Votes
+ -
The double insult of taxes
enovikoff 25th Apr
There are two lies around taxes that get me steamed. One is that somehow, we can receive government services without paying them. And the other is that the work to prepare them and maintain the records is OK to arbitrarily impose upon us. The first lie is quite obvious to anyone who thinks about it - with the exception of politicians and tea-partiers - and results in an ever increasing transfer of federal tax liability to state and local taxes which include sales taxes. This transfer is generally more regressive (harder on the poor) than federal tax and because the poor & middle class spend most of their money rather than socking it away, this transfer lowers GDP and kills jobs. The second lie is the one that you fell for, Terry. I live in California too, but it will be a cold day in hell when I transfer the burden of paying sales tax from my vendors to my own paperwork. I am too busy trying to build a business that hires other citizens to work to the State of California's Franchise Tax Board as an unpaid bookkeeper. The only "cheating" that happens is when the state "cheats" you out of your time and life-energy, which they thankfully can't easily enforce. That you so willingly comply is more of a black mark on you than it is on those who have more productive things to do with their limited time on this planet.

As much as I love not paying sales tax for Amazon purchases, I certainly would rather pay it than file paperwork. And I'd much rather that our federal tax rates be returned to that of the 1980s (when all those famous tea-partiers weren't complaining about them) which would unburden the states from charging such high sales taxes in the first place.
@terry flores

"Sales tax is one of the most regressive forms of tax, disproportionately affecting lower income consumers."

Please explain to me how a fixed rate tax on an expense is somehow disproportionate to lower income consumers. If I spend $10,000 the tax I owe is $600 (MD sales tax) but if I only spend $100, I only owe $6. If it were up to Republicans, the lower income families would be doing most of the heavy lifting while the rich pay nothing. Now THAT is disproportionate!
@jmiller1978

The states like the Federal Govt spend too much money. Like you...you have to live within your means. If you needed more money to cover expenses you have 2 choices: get a second job or cut expenses. Common sense says cut expenses. Get it!
@rrushing

There's no disputing that some states (mine included) are getting spend happy and it's affecting states with both Republican and Democratic governors. I was just disagreeing with how sales taxes are somehow unfair to lower income families.
@jmiller1978 Sales tax on consumer vs. capital goods is regressive, since these expenditures take up a higher percentage of the budget of a person or family with a lower income and come with a higher relative tax burden. A 2004 OMB study showed that a household making $40K/year could spend 40 percent of their income on taxable consumer goods, while one making $400K per year would spend only about 7 percent. Add to that the fact that very few low and middle income families are able to use the sales tax deduction, while 99 percent of those making over million deduct them (IRS 2006). The current sales taxes, "sin" taxes, and fuel taxes put an enormous burden on the middle class that is not shared by the rich.
@jmiller1978

LOL, your second point is very correct. But regressive tax is in relation to persons disposable incomes. There a sales taxes is said to be regressive as the person who have more disposbale incomes (like the rich) and the lower income consumer all pay the same amount. The effect is greater on the lower imcome person, hence the term regressive.
@jmiller1978

The deal is that higher income people do not generally spend as much of their income on taxable items - yes, the amount does increase, but not in proportion. Whatever higher income folks send to savings and other investments is not taxable in the form of a sales tax. Folks at the "low end" of the income spectrum nore generally end up spending 100% of their income on taxable goods & services. THAT is why sales tax is not equitable - it truly does discriminate against the concumer who has to spend all of their income on mere existence, compared to higher income folks who may spend much lower proportions on necessities, and are more free to allocate the discretionary portion of their income to other, likely non-taxable items, services, or investments.
0 Votes
+ -
RE:
Lerianis10 18th Jul
@jmiller1978

You miss the fact that the rich are able to go out of country or overseas where they can 'dodge' the sales taxes period and done with.

THAT is why it is regressive to lower income people, jmiller.... do us all a favor and THINK before you post next time, please!

Otherwise, you are just going to keep on embarrassing yourself, as in this case.
0 Votes
+ -
RE:
Lerianis10 18th Jul
@jmiller1978

Yes, there is disputing that states are getting spend happy. Adjusted for inflation (that little thing that conservatives H A T E to do because it always busts their beliefs) almost every state in the United States (with the slight exception of California) is spending LESS than they did in the 1970's.... much less, in some cases. The feds don't have a spending problem.... they have a REVENUE problem.
@jmiller1978
The regressive aspect comes from the fact that citizens with lower incomes bear sales tax on 100% of their income,as they tend to spend every dollar they earn for transport and maintenance thereof,clothing and food(and whatever elective expenses they choose to incur). The wealthy tend to not spend 100% of their income,investing,saving etc. thereby avoiding paying sales tax on 100% of their income. This can be considered a consequence/reward/incentive for earning enough money to have discretionary income.But it is in fact a tax on 100% of lower income wage earners income(keeping in mind all of their income is earned,no cap gains etc....flat taxes as proposed always include only earned income,again placing 100% of wage earners income in the taxable column and excluding investment income for those with the income to diversify )
@Lerianis10

Those are some pretty harsh words. No worries though, I don't feel I did embarrass myself. I made an opinion much like you and like a certain bodypart, everyone's got them and they sometimes stink.

Also why would a rich person fly out of the country($$$$) to keep from paying sales tax ($) when they'd just have to pay duties and customs ($$) plus if the purchase is too large, then they'd have it shipped ($$$). Seems kind of rediculous to me when they could have just flown to a no sales tax state like Delaware. Wow, good thing I didn't embarrass myself. wink
0 Votes
+ -
re: why sales taxes are regressive
bkshort@... 13th Apr
Sales taxes are regressive because lower income households spend (must spend) a greater proportion of their incomes than higher income households. A millionaire can avoid paying sales taxes by not a portion of his income. A person earning minimum wage doesn't have that luxury .. not if he/she wants to eat and a place to sleep.
0 Votes
+ -
"Govt spends 'too much'"
enovikoff 25th Apr
One of the downsides of living in a democratically organized society is that each individual doesn't get to be the dictator that decides how taxes are spent. For example, I don't get to decide that the 66% of the federal budget that is spend on the military is too high. With that Elephant In The Livingroom, really complaining about any other expenditure is silly. With that 66%, we could pay off the entire deficit in a few years, get everyone a graduate college education, build a high speed rail network connecting all the US cities, completely develop alternative energy so that there was no need for foreign oil, and eliminate every citizen's worry about getting health care... and have money left over. Talk about real "National Security"! We wouldn't even *need* to go fight any wars because we'd be so happy with our own nation that there would be no desire to go tell someone else how to run their country. And after we did all that, we could even cut taxes. What a thought. But oh well, I don't get to make the decision. So Jmiller, if your common sense says cut expenses, go for the military budget. And if you can't bring yourself to do that, then you'll have to "get a second job", i.e., raise taxes.
@terry flores

Daivid is a pinhead. Businesses are in it for the money. Capitalism...get it. If states do things to run off businesses that is their fault.
0 Votes
+ -
States running off businesses
enovikoff 25th Apr
Well, the common sense solution is to reduce state taxes and transfer that responsibility back to the fed, where it is applied equally across the nation. That would reduce the inequality between states and allow businesses to choose the state that is best for them based on factors other than state taxes.
0 Votes
+ -
Good response, Terry
bblackmoor@... 18th Jul
@terry flores Color me shocked that the first response is also a sensible one. Well done.
Tax cuts=tax spending? That?s the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. First of all corporations don't really pay any taxes in the country. Corporations are in it to make money, if you add taxes to their bottom line, or take deductions away they just add them to the price of their products. Then other businesses or consumers bear the extra cost, there isn?t some pile of extra money laying around you can take from and not expect a hit in the marketplace.
@sy34010

Is it really? If you cut taxes, that's money you're not getting that you otherwise would have. And your post just further points to the slaves we have become to a capitalist society. "Don't charge them taxes because they make us pay more." Well maybe Americans should BUY LESS! But no, our collective greed has allowed us to have the lowest tax rates in over half a century, the highest amount of debt and a country that is fully run by banks and corporations while we enjoy high unemployment and they enjoy high profit margins by shipping jobs overseas. Wake up people!
@jmiller1978
You do realize that if we BUY LESS that unemployment will only increase right?!?
@mdshann

That's just wrong. Americans buy more now than ever and we currently have one of the highest unemployment rates in recent history. Corporations need proper oversight and that is just not around anymore because like I said, the profits they make from us are going to the payroll of some Indian call center or Asian factory while most U.S. factories stand in ruin after being closed down.
0 Votes
+ -
Tax rates are not the issue
stano360 23rd Apr
Don't be deceived by the high tax rates of the past. Look at actual payment of taxes. Actual paid rates after various deductions has almost always been between 15-20% across the population. People are not stupid, who is going to sit by while the government seizes 50-90% of their income? No one ever did that. All you do is create illogical markets, massive investments in State bonds or foreign investments, to shield your money. Taxes do not mean revenue, higher taxes can mean closing a business because it is no longer profitable, or pulling investments because there are better alternatives.

So Jmiller proposes raising taxes and that will convince investors to bring jobs to the US? Wow, the re-education high school sure did it's job of removing Adam Smith from the curriculum!
0 Votes
+ -
tax cuts = tax spending
enovikoff 25th Apr
From the perspective of the federal budget, they are the same. I hate comparing the federal budget to a home budget, but it is useful in this case. If you go buy a car that has a payment of $500/mo, or your company cuts your pay by $500/mo, then the effect on you home budget is the same (ignoring tax effects.) Same with the fed: every dollar it doesn't take in from taxes is the same as spending another extra dollar. So a tax cut is the same thing as a tax expense to the government. This is why the Bush Tax Cuts are the single largest recurring expense the government has ever taken on.
@terry flores

"Sales tax is one of the most regressive forms of tax, disproportionately affecting lower income consumers."

B.S.! The fact that books are discretionary voids your liberal line all on its own. But there are additional counter-points as well. Regressive is used to refer to taxes that don't apply proportionately to all. Sales tax does -- everyone (in the same zone) pays the same percentage. If you meant that it *affects* the poor disproportionately, well, being poor affects the poor disproportionately. Fact. That doesn't mean sales tax is unfair toward the poor. It is, in fact, the *most* progressive tax: it leaves the decision on whether the buyer can afford the tax WITH THE BUYER. Income taxes don't do that -- we simply have to pay. Property taxes don't do that -- we simply have to pay. Nice try.
@terry flores You said a mouthful. You're exactly right. To David Gewirtz you need to be unemployed if you think this is a good idea. Amazon has made their way off of my crud list, but sticking to their guns on this!!! It's about time a company did this. Walmart, BestBuy and Target should have followed suit instead of running ad campaigns badgering Amazon and running them in the dirt!
The reason the states are in this mess is they completely mismanage every nickel that is brought in. It is bad enough that my pay gets taxed, then when I can get a break and order off of amazon and save myself some money, now the states want to come after me to pay them what they feel is their cut. Sorry, I stand behind Amazon because if someone does not draw a line in the sand, the consumer will be taxed to death.
@CowboyJake -
Couldn't agree more! But let's take that to another level, shall we? Consider - we are taxed on our income, then we are taxed on purchases we make. Isn't this double taxation, considering that we are taxed by the state for both our income AND our purchases? In other words, we're taxed on the money we have left over in order to be taxed on purchased goods!
Not only that, as a small business owner, I have to pay Social Security taxes on myself as both an employer AND as an employee! How fair is that? Yes, as long as the government & corporations mismanage money, you & I will be asked to foot more & more of their bills - it's time to STOP! Hope Amazon wins this battle!
0 Votes
+ -
"Not only that, as a small business owner, I have to pay Social Security taxes on myself as both an employer AND as an employee! How fair is that? "

How can you as a business person not understand why a self-employed individual pays both the employee and employer portions of FICA? If that wasn't the case, the SS fund would be collecting less money on self-employed individuals than on those employed by others.
0 Votes
+ -
...
snoop0x7b 18th Jul
@CowboyJake You do realize that they're just rtying to enforce the law? Any state with sales tax usually has a use tax requirement requiring the consumer to report any online purchases and pay the sales tax... Why do states get their "cut"? Do you enjoy driving on roads? Do you enjoy the pipes that bring you water? Do you enjoy having your water free of pollutants?
0 Votes
+ -
Huh?
stano360 23rd Apr
You know the things you mentioned in most states are usually not paid with Sales Tax. Plus, it is not the law to collect sales tax if you have no presence in the state in question.
In the alternative, the states could do what you and I do if our income goes down, cut spending. State spending is as out of control as federal spending. Total Government expenditures in the US (Federal, State, Local) are about $6.2 trillion out of GDP of about $14.5 trillion, that's 43% of GDP spent on Government at all levels and is absurd. We need to be spending around 30% of GDP all in.

So I say, keep it up Amazon, make them live within their means.
@rshol Whatever rules Amazon gets to play by, the other retailers need to get access to, regardless of whether you believe in sales tax or not. Don't lose sight of the real issue.
@ejhonda
The issue is not fairness for businesses, anybody can sell online, the entry barriers are amazingly low and, if you sell to someone in the states where you have nexus, you collect and remit sales tax. Different sales channels have always had pluses and minuses. If you run a brick and mortar store you have to collect and remit sales tax, but your customer gets to feel/touch/see the product and your sales people have an opportunity to directly interact.

Do not add to states ability to collect tax out of some misguided sense fairness. Remember brick and mortar stores have to pay property tax too, pay payroll taxes on their store employees, and have various local business licenses all of which online stores do not have to do, is that also unfair?
0 Votes
+ -
rshol: Let's put it another way...
John L. Ries 18th Jul
@ejhonda
...why should online and mail order retailers get a tax break that's not given to other sorts of retailers? How does this serve the public interest?
@John L. Ries

Who is saying that they are getting a benefit not available to other types of retailers? Anyone can set up a website, or sell items through an e-bay style store, or any other type. It is not as if there is a limited amount of online storefronts...
0 Votes
+ -
Not true rshol
stano360 23rd Apr
Online businesses have to pay property tax, payroll tax, every other tax! I pay CA corporate taxes (outrageous btw) etc. That is not different. The people behind this are the giant retailers, Wal-Mart, Target etc. because they collect sales tax no matter what. Small retailers, can and do set up online sites that have the same advantages as any other retail website.
0 Votes
+ -
RE:
Lerianis10 18th Jul
@rshol

No, state spending is NOT out of control. Adjusted for inflation, the feds and almost all states, California excepted, are spending LESS than they did in the 1970's.
0 Votes
+ -
Link please
stano360 23rd Apr
From an non-progressive proto-Marxist website
0 Votes
+ -
You misunderstand the rules
Rick_R 18th Jul
The decision of the Supreme Court was that forcing out-of-state companies to collect sales taxes is an undue burden on interstate commerce and therefore is prohibited under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Politics won't change that.

Also, the fact is that there are over five thousand separate taxing districts in the U.S. that can impose a sales tax. There is the state, that sets the base rate. Many counties add their own layer. And then many cities can add on top of that. There normally is an overall cap--i.e., the county can add a maximum of X% and cities can add a maximum of Y%. You also get the situation where if the person lives within city limits in a county there is city sales tax but if the person lives in an "unincorporated" section of the county there is no extra sales tax because the county has not enacted a tax, only the city has.

Tracking all those variations would be an administrative nightmare. And if the company gets it wrong, it is liable for the correct tax. And then, of course, if the company has to collect and report the tax, it can be audited for compliance. Imagine getting audited 100-300 times per year! And, of course, the taxing authority doesn't have to go to the collecting entity, the collecting entity has to go to the taxing authority. So, for instance, the city of Portland, Maine (assuming they have a sales tax), could insist that Amazon have a representative show up in Portland with a copy of its records for that area. Portland, Oregon could do the same. So could Dallas, Texas, Dallas, Georgia, Dallas, Pennsylvania, etc.

The fact is that in most states (probably all, but I haven't checked) technically it is a "sales and use" tax. That means that if you didn't pay sales tax up front (because you bought it out of state, for example), you are supposed to voluntarily pay an equivalent "use" tax. So, for example, if you buy your friend's old TV set for $300, you are supposed to send the state whatever the tax is.
0 Votes
+ -
Other companies manage to collect it
oncall Updated - 18th Jul
@Rick_R

So I am very doubtful of the entire "administrative nightmare" argument. Maybe for mom and pop store, not for a multi-billion dollar business that is in the business of handling massive amounts of data.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix