4 ms·

While most like the trumpet the enumerated protections of the Constitution that the US enjoys, this is (IMHO) an example of where the wording and the intent of

by cletus 15y ago

While most like the trumpet the enumerated protections of the Constitution that the US enjoys, this is (IMHO) an example of where the wording and the intent of the Constitution is outdated. Most developed nations have some for of consumption/sales tax. In the EU it's typically 17.5-25%, in Australia it's 10%, in Switzerland it's ~7% and so on. America has this on a state by state basis. Nowadays the split jurisdiction with interstate commerce is now awkward and unwieldy. I believe that in the coming years the Federal government will act to enforce an interstate sales tax and maybe even a tax on imports. The path of least resistance here is for the sales tax due to be the sales tax that applies in the state of the recipient. I'm not sure how much revenue that would raise but my guess is a lot. As for Amazon, I'm not sure what they're thinking. In a year they'll have the same problem. One would think they're confident of Federal action in the next year on online sales taxes or they think the climate will have changed in a year. I'm not convinced of either. Are they that desperate that a year's delay is a win for them? While we're at it, what's up with New York? Amazon collects sales tax for the state of New York while it (thus far unsuccessfully) has tried to challenge the "Amazon tax" in the courts. Is New York a test case? Are the affiliates in New York that much more valuable?

calloc 15y ago
I thought it was because Amazon had an physical presence in the state of new york...
nostromo 15y ago
This is a classic case of "who moved my cheese." Sales tax used to make sense -- but it's trivial to avoid with the advent of e-commerce. Instead of struggling to preserve the small e-commerce portion of this small revenue stream (California is looking for $200 million in revenue from Amazon a year while the state budget is over $100 billion) the states should find other sources of revenue or cut spending.
pyre 15y ago
> Most developed nations have some for of > consumption/sales tax. In the EU it's typically > 17.5-25%, in Australia it's 10%, in Switzerland it's > ~7% and so on. America has this on a state by state > basis. 1. It's nice in that I live in Oregon and there is no sales tax. :P 2. Canada has provincial sales tax and a national sales tax, so the overall sales tax is still 'state-by-state.'
- rationalbeats 15y ago
  >1. It's nice in that I live in Oregon and there is no sales tax. :P Have you looked at your paycheck and see how much they take out on state income tax? I spent half a year working in Oregon then another half in CA and when I got my first paycheck in CA after 6 months in Oregon I thought there was a mistake with payroll because we are talking about a few hundred more a paycheck for 2 weeks of work. The difference being state tax level between OR and CA. So in CA I have a couple thousand more in cash to spend (or invest in savings roth ira/401k etc) as compared to making the same salary in Oregon.
  - pyre 15y ago
    It may not be directly related to that, but I don't mind it that much. I like the fact that when I look at the price for something I don't have to add in the sales tax. I sort of like the one-or-the-other approach in Oregon (only income tax, no sales tax) and Washington (only sales tax, no income tax). There are obviously nuances (e.g. Multnomah County has a ~15% tax on car rentals) though.
  - repiret 15y ago
    I've found that my paycheck goes a lot farther since I moved to Oregon. Oregon has (nearly) a flat income tax at 9%, while California has a progressive income tax topping out around 9.5%. The CA income tax advantage shrinks as you make more money. On the other hand, if you don't make a lot of money, then you probably have a lower savings rate. If your savings rate is low, then a large portion of your income is subject to the 7-9% sales tax. It'd be interesting to draw a surface map. On the two horizontal axis put income and savings rate, and make the height the difference between the total effective California tax and Oregon tax. I'd do this now, but I need to sleep instead. Additionally, one should compare CA's Prop 13 with OR's Measure 47. Both limit the rate at which a houses assessed value can grow, but Prop 13 allows for discontinuities of assessed value when a house is bought, while Measure 47 doesn't. As a result, new home owners in OR pay much lower property taxes than new home owners in CA. (By new home owner, I mean someone who newly owns a house, not someone who owns a new house. Measure 47 favors old houses.)

by cletus 15y ago

calloc 15y ago

I thought it was because Amazon had an physical presence in the state of new york...

nostromo 15y ago

This is a classic case of "who moved my cheese." Sales tax used to make sense -- but it's trivial to avoid with the advent of e-commerce. Instead of struggling to preserve the small e-commerce portion of this small revenue stream (California is looking for $200 million in revenue from Amazon a year while the state budget is over $100 billion) the states should find other sources of revenue or cut spending.

pyre 15y ago

> Most developed nations have some for of > consumption/sales tax. In the EU it's typically > 17.5-25%, in Australia it's 10%, in Switzerland it's > ~7% and so on. America has this on a state by state > basis. 1. It's nice in that I live in Oregon and there is no sales tax. :P 2. Canada has provincial sales tax and a national sales tax, so the overall sales tax is still 'state-by-state.'

rationalbeats 15y ago
>1. It's nice in that I live in Oregon and there is no sales tax. :P Have you looked at your paycheck and see how much they take out on state income tax? I spent half a year working in Oregon then another half in CA and when I got my first paycheck in CA after 6 months in Oregon I thought there was a mistake with payroll because we are talking about a few hundred more a paycheck for 2 weeks of work. The difference being state tax level between OR and CA. So in CA I have a couple thousand more in cash to spend (or invest in savings roth ira/401k etc) as compared to making the same salary in Oregon.
- pyre 15y ago
  It may not be directly related to that, but I don't mind it that much. I like the fact that when I look at the price for something I don't have to add in the sales tax. I sort of like the one-or-the-other approach in Oregon (only income tax, no sales tax) and Washington (only sales tax, no income tax). There are obviously nuances (e.g. Multnomah County has a ~15% tax on car rentals) though.
- repiret 15y ago
  I've found that my paycheck goes a lot farther since I moved to Oregon. Oregon has (nearly) a flat income tax at 9%, while California has a progressive income tax topping out around 9.5%. The CA income tax advantage shrinks as you make more money. On the other hand, if you don't make a lot of money, then you probably have a lower savings rate. If your savings rate is low, then a large portion of your income is subject to the 7-9% sales tax. It'd be interesting to draw a surface map. On the two horizontal axis put income and savings rate, and make the height the difference between the total effective California tax and Oregon tax. I'd do this now, but I need to sleep instead. Additionally, one should compare CA's Prop 13 with OR's Measure 47. Both limit the rate at which a houses assessed value can grow, but Prop 13 allows for discontinuities of assessed value when a house is bought, while Measure 47 doesn't. As a result, new home owners in OR pay much lower property taxes than new home owners in CA. (By new home owner, I mean someone who newly owns a house, not someone who owns a new house. Measure 47 favors old houses.)