5 ms·

Maybe Amazon could ask Connecticut to build them a new road in the state which they currently reside. Connecticut would say: "Sorry, we won't service entities

by maeon3 15y ago

Maybe Amazon could ask Connecticut to build them a new road in the state which they currently reside. Connecticut would say: "Sorry, we won't service entities that are not physically inside Connecticut." And that quote illustrates he hypocrisy. Connecticut wants to receive money from entities outside their state, but they will not service those same entities outside their state. This is all about getting something for nothing. If a state wants to tax entities from outside the state, then it should bring on new responsibilities for that state. Connecticut should be servicing Amazon in some significant way, proportional to the amount of money extracted from it. The best way for amazon to fight this is to insist on a fair and equitable trade of tax money for state government services.

lsc 15y ago
the thing is, the tax is already being levied. And it's generally considered a tax on the customer doing the buying (who does live within that state) If the merchant is also within that state, the merchant is expected to collect the tax. If the merchant is out of state, the consumer is supposed to keep track of and pay 'use tax' The argument here is not over if the tax should be paid or not, or even over who should pay the tax. the argument is over who should collect the tax; the states want the retailers to collect because that's likely to lead to increased compliance, and the retailers want the state to collect, 'cause that makes out of state goods look cheaper to people who plan to not report their use tax.
- iwwr 15y ago
  Moreover, Amazon is trying to avoid a circumstance where every state and county has different and potentially complex sales tax laws. Say, County X could have 100 different little tax levels depending on the type of product, time of day, phase of the moon etc. As is clear from the Amazon statement, they are not against sales taxes in principle and would agree to pay one if it were uniform (i.e. hassle-free).
  - qeorge 15y ago
    As is clear from the Amazon statement, they are not against sales taxes in principle and would agree to pay one if it were uniform As lsc pointed out above, that's not the case at all. Amazon is refusing to collect taxes on behalf of its customers, not refusing to pay its own taxes. By law, citizens are supposed to tally up what they bought from internet retailers over the course of the year and pay any remaining sales tax on April 15th. Shockingly, this isn't happening, and the sales taxes aren't being paid at all. So these states want Amazon to behave like a bricks and mortar retailer, and collect the tax at time of sale instead. Amazon doesn't want to collect sales tax because not doing so makes their prices look lower than competitors like Barnes and Noble, which does collect sales tax. Nothing more, nothing less.
    - mkr-hn 15y ago
      Wal-Mart wanted $30 for a 10 foot USB cable. I got the same cable down the road for $10 at Radio Shack. Wal-Mart should be cheaper due to larger bulk discounts and their famed logistics. A $20 difference can't be accounted for with a 6% sales tax. And it was still cheaper than online once I added shipping.
    - iwwr 15y ago
      For its part, Amazon supports the Streamlined Sales Tax project, which aims to harmonize and clarify states sales tax laws across the country. and “The sales tax collection is very complicated. The right place to fix this is with federal legislation.”
    - patrickgzill 15y ago
      The law concerning use tax is un-Constitutional, that is the issue; and something that most people who do not file the use tax portion, are well aware of. edit: what part of "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." is unclear?
      - esrauch 15y ago
        It is unconstitutional for a state to force a corporation out of state to collect sales tax, but it is certainly not unconstitutional to tax individuals in your state based on almost any concievable action the individual chooses to do.
davweb 15y ago
I'm not sure roads is the best example to give here. Doesn't Amazon benefit from the state maintained roads since it would be difficult to get its order delivered without them? Although as his been said, Sales Tax is usually regarded as a tax on consumer consumption rather than a tax on business which is why business to business sales are often exempt from sales taxes.
- nhebb 15y ago
  Presumably, the delivery trucks are already subsidizing the state road maintenance through gas taxes and vehicle registration fees. Still, if 100% of the sales to Connecticut residents were through affiliates I could see your point, but since that's unlikely, I view it as the states using affiliates as a loop hole to get around the 1992 Supreme Court ruling.
dhyasama 15y ago
Amazon doesn't pay the tax, their customers do. Connecticut requires Amazon to collect the tax from consumers then give it to the state.

by maeon3 15y ago

lsc 15y ago

the thing is, the tax is already being levied. And it's generally considered a tax on the customer doing the buying (who does live within that state) If the merchant is also within that state, the merchant is expected to collect the tax. If the merchant is out of state, the consumer is supposed to keep track of and pay 'use tax' The argument here is not over if the tax should be paid or not, or even over who should pay the tax. the argument is over who should collect the tax; the states want the retailers to collect because that's likely to lead to increased compliance, and the retailers want the state to collect, 'cause that makes out of state goods look cheaper to people who plan to not report their use tax.

iwwr 15y ago
Moreover, Amazon is trying to avoid a circumstance where every state and county has different and potentially complex sales tax laws. Say, County X could have 100 different little tax levels depending on the type of product, time of day, phase of the moon etc. As is clear from the Amazon statement, they are not against sales taxes in principle and would agree to pay one if it were uniform (i.e. hassle-free).
- qeorge 15y ago
  As is clear from the Amazon statement, they are not against sales taxes in principle and would agree to pay one if it were uniform As lsc pointed out above, that's not the case at all. Amazon is refusing to collect taxes on behalf of its customers, not refusing to pay its own taxes. By law, citizens are supposed to tally up what they bought from internet retailers over the course of the year and pay any remaining sales tax on April 15th. Shockingly, this isn't happening, and the sales taxes aren't being paid at all. So these states want Amazon to behave like a bricks and mortar retailer, and collect the tax at time of sale instead. Amazon doesn't want to collect sales tax because not doing so makes their prices look lower than competitors like Barnes and Noble, which does collect sales tax. Nothing more, nothing less.
  - mkr-hn 15y ago
    Wal-Mart wanted $30 for a 10 foot USB cable. I got the same cable down the road for $10 at Radio Shack. Wal-Mart should be cheaper due to larger bulk discounts and their famed logistics. A $20 difference can't be accounted for with a 6% sales tax. And it was still cheaper than online once I added shipping.
  - iwwr 15y ago
    For its part, Amazon supports the Streamlined Sales Tax project, which aims to harmonize and clarify states sales tax laws across the country. and “The sales tax collection is very complicated. The right place to fix this is with federal legislation.”
  - patrickgzill 15y ago
    The law concerning use tax is un-Constitutional, that is the issue; and something that most people who do not file the use tax portion, are well aware of. edit: what part of "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." is unclear?
    - esrauch 15y ago
      It is unconstitutional for a state to force a corporation out of state to collect sales tax, but it is certainly not unconstitutional to tax individuals in your state based on almost any concievable action the individual chooses to do.

davweb 15y ago

I'm not sure roads is the best example to give here. Doesn't Amazon benefit from the state maintained roads since it would be difficult to get its order delivered without them? Although as his been said, Sales Tax is usually regarded as a tax on consumer consumption rather than a tax on business which is why business to business sales are often exempt from sales taxes.

nhebb 15y ago
Presumably, the delivery trucks are already subsidizing the state road maintenance through gas taxes and vehicle registration fees. Still, if 100% of the sales to Connecticut residents were through affiliates I could see your point, but since that's unlikely, I view it as the states using affiliates as a loop hole to get around the 1992 Supreme Court ruling.

dhyasama 15y ago

Amazon doesn't pay the tax, their customers do. Connecticut requires Amazon to collect the tax from consumers then give it to the state.