4 ms·

> they've also raised many prices, to the point where they're far from the cheapest price in many cases I've been loyal to Amazon, but am certainly willing to

by kmano8 8y ago

> they've also raised many prices, to the point where they're far from the cheapest price in many cases I've been loyal to Amazon, but am certainly willing to buy items elsewhere if the top to bottom price + experience is better. For example, camera equipment and many electronics, I've been finding prices better at B&H photo -- and you don't have to pay sales tax if shipping outside NY. Also, their customer service is at least as good as Amazon's. Sure, it's less convenient to purchase across more ecomm sites, but I'm fine with it if Amazon's value prop begins to diminish.

sandworm101 8y ago
Well, you may not be charged the tax but you probable still have a legal obligation to pay it. That you choose not to to fill out all the forms is on you. Each state and country is different in how they treat online sales re local taxes.
- kmano8 8y ago
  Sure. I'd be curious to see some data on who actually follows through on this. Pushing the burden to the consumer to document these transactions doesn't make any sense to me. Additionally, I bet many consumers don't even realize when taxes haven't been paid during checkout.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    It isn't anything new. When you order something from another jurisdiction you aren't a simple consumer. You are an importer, subject to all the rule of any other importer. Amazon just implements what everyone was supposed to be doing already. Allow online sales to occur without sales tax and one day nobody will ever pay sales tax. Every transaction could be structured in terms of online order and local delivery. Starbucks could let you order coffee online, then pick it up at the counter. This is why states are moving on this issue now. Amazon is just the first to implement it on their side of the transaction.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  Constitutionally, states can't tax interstate commerce. That is a federal power. A lot of states have created "use taxes" on goods purchased in another state and imported by the buyer. This is because requiring companies to withhold taxes for states in which they do not have a substantial business presence would be overly burdensome on interstate commerce. These use taxes are likely unconstitutional, but states ask their own residents to voluntarily report their cross-border sales, calculate their own tax amounts, and pay them anyway. I don't think the constitutionality has been tested from that direction, but it seems to rest upon an argument that use tax is valid, just because the goods were pulled across the border this time, rather than pushed, like all the other interstate commerce tax cases reviewed by SCotUS. As such, the only constitutionally valid use tax would be for goods purchased within your own state, for which the seller did not withhold and remit sales taxes. So cash-in-person flea market, swap meet, and classified-ad purchases, basically. You only definitively have an obligation to pay tax on goods sold and consumed entirely within the same state. Traveling salesmen are insufficient to cause a company to qualify as having a substantial presence in a state--their sales are considered to be made in the state where their company is based, or in the state from which the actual goods were manufactured or shipped. I'd expect that e-commerce sites would be no different. If Amazon has an office, data center, or a fulfillment center in your state, you owe sales tax, and Amazon should collect it. If they do not, their site is just a traveling salesman, and your interstate purchase is subject only to federal taxes, rather than state taxes. States bleat and squeal about loss of sales tax revenues to e-commerce sales by out-of-state companies, but they do not have a constitutional remedy for that, so too bad for them. Interstate commerce is explicitly federal jurisdiction. And Congress so far has not instituted any tariff/duty regime on goods crossing state borders. But it keeps coming up for votes, in Congress after Congress.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    This isn't taxing interstate commerce. This is applying the applicable sales tax. There is always point of sale, in one state or the other. Some states choose to interpret that point of sale as being where the buyer is standing when making the purchase (ie the delivery address). Other states would say that it is wherever the server is (Nevada, ie gambling). A state demanding that online purchasers pay a sales tax is not taxing interstate commerce, it is enforcing a tax against sales occurring within its boarders. States do have that power.

by kmano8 8y ago

sandworm101 8y ago

Well, you may not be charged the tax but you probable still have a legal obligation to pay it. That you choose not to to fill out all the forms is on you. Each state and country is different in how they treat online sales re local taxes.

kmano8 8y ago
Sure. I'd be curious to see some data on who actually follows through on this. Pushing the burden to the consumer to document these transactions doesn't make any sense to me. Additionally, I bet many consumers don't even realize when taxes haven't been paid during checkout.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  It isn't anything new. When you order something from another jurisdiction you aren't a simple consumer. You are an importer, subject to all the rule of any other importer. Amazon just implements what everyone was supposed to be doing already. Allow online sales to occur without sales tax and one day nobody will ever pay sales tax. Every transaction could be structured in terms of online order and local delivery. Starbucks could let you order coffee online, then pick it up at the counter. This is why states are moving on this issue now. Amazon is just the first to implement it on their side of the transaction.
logfromblammo 8y ago
Constitutionally, states can't tax interstate commerce. That is a federal power. A lot of states have created "use taxes" on goods purchased in another state and imported by the buyer. This is because requiring companies to withhold taxes for states in which they do not have a substantial business presence would be overly burdensome on interstate commerce. These use taxes are likely unconstitutional, but states ask their own residents to voluntarily report their cross-border sales, calculate their own tax amounts, and pay them anyway. I don't think the constitutionality has been tested from that direction, but it seems to rest upon an argument that use tax is valid, just because the goods were pulled across the border this time, rather than pushed, like all the other interstate commerce tax cases reviewed by SCotUS. As such, the only constitutionally valid use tax would be for goods purchased within your own state, for which the seller did not withhold and remit sales taxes. So cash-in-person flea market, swap meet, and classified-ad purchases, basically. You only definitively have an obligation to pay tax on goods sold and consumed entirely within the same state. Traveling salesmen are insufficient to cause a company to qualify as having a substantial presence in a state--their sales are considered to be made in the state where their company is based, or in the state from which the actual goods were manufactured or shipped. I'd expect that e-commerce sites would be no different. If Amazon has an office, data center, or a fulfillment center in your state, you owe sales tax, and Amazon should collect it. If they do not, their site is just a traveling salesman, and your interstate purchase is subject only to federal taxes, rather than state taxes. States bleat and squeal about loss of sales tax revenues to e-commerce sales by out-of-state companies, but they do not have a constitutional remedy for that, so too bad for them. Interstate commerce is explicitly federal jurisdiction. And Congress so far has not instituted any tariff/duty regime on goods crossing state borders. But it keeps coming up for votes, in Congress after Congress.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  This isn't taxing interstate commerce. This is applying the applicable sales tax. There is always point of sale, in one state or the other. Some states choose to interpret that point of sale as being where the buyer is standing when making the purchase (ie the delivery address). Other states would say that it is wherever the server is (Nevada, ie gambling). A state demanding that online purchasers pay a sales tax is not taxing interstate commerce, it is enforcing a tax against sales occurring within its boarders. States do have that power.