3 ms·

Uh, who brought in residents of different states? California residents should be paying the California sales tax on things they buy, and the state has a right

by jbooth 15y ago

Uh, who brought in residents of different states? California residents should be paying the California sales tax on things they buy, and the state has a right to make that happen. Nobody's talking about forcing Colorado residents to do anything. I agree that they should find a way to make it a reasonable burden for Amazon to collect that information, but if local retailers have to collect and Amazon doesn't, that seems unfair and noncompetitive.

InclinedPlane 15y ago
So if an amazon customer living in California buys an item that is fulfilled from Arizona, why should a California sales tax be involved? Why are we suddenly redefining the meaning of local sales tax? Are we now to the point where every state with a local sales tax will also impose tariffs on out-of-state goods? That seems to be the argument here.
- jbooth 15y ago
  Because it was purchased by a Californian from California? I don't get how Arizona's involved at all, Best Buy prob has distribution centers there too, it's not a part of Best Buy's point of sale tax calculations. Again, it's not a tarriff on out-of-state goods, it's assessing the same tax on out-of-state as you do on in-state goods. A non-reverse-tarriff, if you will. Level playing field is all I'm arguing for here, don't see how that message keeps getting lost.
  - calloc 15y ago
    Because you are asking a business to file taxes in all 50 states it does business with instead of the consumer that is purchasing the goods who should be declaring them and paying tax on them directly to the state.
Goronmon 15y ago
>Uh, who brought in residents of different states? That's the whole point of this issue. It involves parties in different states. You're argument is that if someone from state A does business in state B, then it is the responsbility of the business in state B to collect the sales tax required by state A. How can you not understand why this is a terrible argument? It means that every business would have to know and calculate the sales tax for all 49 other states and that every purchase would require proof of residence to verify which sales tax needed to be charged. Then the business would have to deal with filing taxes in 50 separate states. Ugh...I can't even imagine how this makes any sense to anyone.
cek 15y ago
"and the state has a right" Governments do not have rights. Only people have rights. Governments exist to protect the rights of people.
- jbooth 15y ago
  Oh, for criminy.. you know what I meant, right? California even has those ballot measures, the citizens vote on taxation policy on a regular basis. The "government of the people, by the people and for the people" has a right, in the people's name, if you'd prefer.
  - cek 15y ago
    Glad to hear that's what you meant. But many people (especially those in government) seem to forget this.
    - jbooth 15y ago
      Capital G. "G"overnment. Sounds scarier.
calloc 15y ago
Amazon is located in Washington, as a convenience to the user and to the state Amazon collects tax in accordance with Washington state law if someone ("user A") purchases an item from its site in Washington. This way "user A" in Washington doesn't owe the state any taxes for that purchase, and doesn't have to declare it on any tax forms. Now someone in California ("user B") purchases an item from Amazon. Amazon is located in Washington and in accordance with federal law is only required to collect taxes for the state it is located in. So "user B" buys the product and Amazon does NOT collect the California state tax. "user B" now has to put all of his purchases down on his tax forms, and pay the tax for the items he bought. Amazon had an affiliate program in California. This affiliate program was claimed by the state of California to mean that Amazon was located in California ("to constitute a physical presence"). If that is the case, then Amazon would legally be required to collect tax for "user B"'s purchase and remit it to the state of California. This would effectively mean that Amazon would now have to file taxes in Washington as well as California. Not a problem for a big corporation you say, imagine then that all 50 states implement said system, Amazon would now be on the hook for filing and paying tax in 50 different states, even-though it technically does not have a physical presence in the state. -- Local retailers have a physical presence in the state, and are by law required to be registered businesses and thus are required to collect state sales tax for the state they are in. If however they also shipped out to other states (lets say they are located in CA, and ship to NJ) they would not have to collect sales tax on the sale when shipping to NJ since that is interstate commerce. -- This may not seem fair, but if any company doing any business with another business or individual out of the state where they have a presence has to keep track and file tax paperwork for each state they do business with it would become unmanageable, especially for smaller businesses where doing tax for one single state is already a big burden, imagine having to do it for all 50 and each one having different laws or different rules regarding taxation. The states are basically attempting to close a loophole consumers are using, whereby they purchase items out of state so that they don't have to pay taxes on it, and then technically they are breaking the law by never declaring those items.
- jbooth 15y ago
  Look, if we want a competitive marketplace, it makes sense that everyone operates under the same tax constraints. This isn't a pro-tax, anti-tax, pro or anti commerce clause thing. It's just basic economics, the best services will float to the top that way.
jerf 15y ago
I carefully restrained myself from accusing you of having a predetermined conclusion and rationalizing it at all costs to logic, sanity, and undesired side effects, but after seeing your studious refusal to address the situation as it actually is, rather than how you'd like it to be, I regret my restraint. I'm sorry this is actually an issue about cross-state jurisdiction, rather than the duty of large companies to be responsible to society and dutifully pay as many taxes as they can, but this is the situation as it actually is.

by jbooth 15y ago

InclinedPlane 15y ago

So if an amazon customer living in California buys an item that is fulfilled from Arizona, why should a California sales tax be involved? Why are we suddenly redefining the meaning of local sales tax? Are we now to the point where every state with a local sales tax will also impose tariffs on out-of-state goods? That seems to be the argument here.

jbooth 15y ago
Because it was purchased by a Californian from California? I don't get how Arizona's involved at all, Best Buy prob has distribution centers there too, it's not a part of Best Buy's point of sale tax calculations. Again, it's not a tarriff on out-of-state goods, it's assessing the same tax on out-of-state as you do on in-state goods. A non-reverse-tarriff, if you will. Level playing field is all I'm arguing for here, don't see how that message keeps getting lost.
- calloc 15y ago
  Because you are asking a business to file taxes in all 50 states it does business with instead of the consumer that is purchasing the goods who should be declaring them and paying tax on them directly to the state.

Goronmon 15y ago

>Uh, who brought in residents of different states? That's the whole point of this issue. It involves parties in different states. You're argument is that if someone from state A does business in state B, then it is the responsbility of the business in state B to collect the sales tax required by state A. How can you not understand why this is a terrible argument? It means that every business would have to know and calculate the sales tax for all 49 other states and that every purchase would require proof of residence to verify which sales tax needed to be charged. Then the business would have to deal with filing taxes in 50 separate states. Ugh...I can't even imagine how this makes any sense to anyone.

cek 15y ago

"and the state has a right" Governments do not have rights. Only people have rights. Governments exist to protect the rights of people.

jbooth 15y ago
Oh, for criminy.. you know what I meant, right? California even has those ballot measures, the citizens vote on taxation policy on a regular basis. The "government of the people, by the people and for the people" has a right, in the people's name, if you'd prefer.
- cek 15y ago
  Glad to hear that's what you meant. But many people (especially those in government) seem to forget this.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    Capital G. "G"overnment. Sounds scarier.

calloc 15y ago

Amazon is located in Washington, as a convenience to the user and to the state Amazon collects tax in accordance with Washington state law if someone ("user A") purchases an item from its site in Washington. This way "user A" in Washington doesn't owe the state any taxes for that purchase, and doesn't have to declare it on any tax forms. Now someone in California ("user B") purchases an item from Amazon. Amazon is located in Washington and in accordance with federal law is only required to collect taxes for the state it is located in. So "user B" buys the product and Amazon does NOT collect the California state tax. "user B" now has to put all of his purchases down on his tax forms, and pay the tax for the items he bought. Amazon had an affiliate program in California. This affiliate program was claimed by the state of California to mean that Amazon was located in California ("to constitute a physical presence"). If that is the case, then Amazon would legally be required to collect tax for "user B"'s purchase and remit it to the state of California. This would effectively mean that Amazon would now have to file taxes in Washington as well as California. Not a problem for a big corporation you say, imagine then that all 50 states implement said system, Amazon would now be on the hook for filing and paying tax in 50 different states, even-though it technically does not have a physical presence in the state. -- Local retailers have a physical presence in the state, and are by law required to be registered businesses and thus are required to collect state sales tax for the state they are in. If however they also shipped out to other states (lets say they are located in CA, and ship to NJ) they would not have to collect sales tax on the sale when shipping to NJ since that is interstate commerce. -- This may not seem fair, but if any company doing any business with another business or individual out of the state where they have a presence has to keep track and file tax paperwork for each state they do business with it would become unmanageable, especially for smaller businesses where doing tax for one single state is already a big burden, imagine having to do it for all 50 and each one having different laws or different rules regarding taxation. The states are basically attempting to close a loophole consumers are using, whereby they purchase items out of state so that they don't have to pay taxes on it, and then technically they are breaking the law by never declaring those items.

jbooth 15y ago
Look, if we want a competitive marketplace, it makes sense that everyone operates under the same tax constraints. This isn't a pro-tax, anti-tax, pro or anti commerce clause thing. It's just basic economics, the best services will float to the top that way.

jerf 15y ago

I carefully restrained myself from accusing you of having a predetermined conclusion and rationalizing it at all costs to logic, sanity, and undesired side effects, but after seeing your studious refusal to address the situation as it actually is, rather than how you'd like it to be, I regret my restraint. I'm sorry this is actually an issue about cross-state jurisdiction, rather than the duty of large companies to be responsible to society and dutifully pay as many taxes as they can, but this is the situation as it actually is.