• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amazon to California: Read My Lips, No Online Sales Tax(edited)

Re: California Screws the Pooch. Amazon cuts ties

Do people purchasing online somehow use less government services than people buying in a brick and mortar store? Do they homeschool their kids, put out their own fires rather than calling the fire department, arrest their own prowlers? Remember, it is the buyer who lives in California paying the taxes, not the seller.

If a person is buying in California, from a seller in California, that's fine to tax it.

If it is a buyer in California, purchasing something from a seller in Nevada, there is no justification for the tax.
California will need to get more competitive, if they want to keep business and taxes in state.

Crime rates and house fires are down.
They don't need the same level of tax money to sustain these public enterprises.
 
Re: California Screws the Pooch. Amazon cuts ties

An aside:

If a person is buying in California, from a seller in California, that's fine to tax it.

If it is a buyer in California, purchasing something from a seller in Nevada, there is no justification for the tax.

That sounds vaguely anti commerce clause. What do you say about the commerce clause? I've no intention of debating it and derailing, just wondering your stance on it.
 
Last edited:
Re: California Screws the Pooch. Amazon cuts ties

An aside:



That sounds vaguely anti commerce clause. What do you say about the commerce clause? I've no intention of debating it and derailing, just wondering your stance on it.

A state has no legal authority to issue a sales tax on something sold of state.
Perfectly within the commerce clause.
 
Re: California Screws the Pooch. Amazon cuts ties

A state has no legal authority to issue a sales tax on something sold of state.
Perfectly within the commerce clause.

If the purchases is within California one could argue the good is sold within California
 
Re: California Screws the Pooch. Amazon cuts ties

.
what of the person buying the good or service, the one who gets charged the sales tax? Amazon does not pay the sales tax, the consumer does, Amazon just collects it and remits it to the government. The consumer definately uses the roads and infrustructure that the taxes pay for.

I never said Amazon paid the taxes. How ever as a consumer if I buy on-line and go to the check out and see tax even though the retailer is out of state, I hit the back button and look elsewhere. I'm not paying shipping AND tax too. It depends on which is more. If the state of California wants to kill the eTailers in this state, let'em. They'll end up with LESS tax dollars in their income tax coffers.

As I said before, if they demand sales tax on everything, I'll move my transaction server and bank account to a state that doesn't, all easily done on line. A forwarding P.O. Box and a business license in that state for an on line biz. The pay myself as the drop shipper in California.
 
Re: California Screws the Pooch. Amazon cuts ties

If the purchases is within California one could argue the good is sold within California

I already pay the BOE for sales tax collected for instate purchases.
 
Re: California Screws the Pooch. Amazon cuts ties

How much of what we buy actually originates in the state where it is sold?
 
I love this one. Stick it to California and any other state that tries this:

Read more: Amazon to California: Read My Lips, No Online Sales Tax - FoxNews.com

Why shouldn't there be state sales tax on sales made w/i a state? Everything sold to a consumer should be taxed -- otherwise the sales tax system is unfair. With the internet making across-state-lines shopping a piece of cake, it's just a matter of time until states catch up and all internet purchases will be taxed. Bully Amazon should just bite the bullet with the rest of the online shopping services. They don't deserve some special exemption. Big babies.
 
The absurd idea is that collecting sales taxes on online purchases from out of state is going to encourage retailers to go out of state. Huh? Wouldn't collecting taxes on local purchases, but not on out of state purchases encourage retailers to move out of state?
 
Re: California Screws the Pooch. Amazon cuts ties

If a person is buying in California, from a seller in California, that's fine to tax it.

If it is a buyer in California, purchasing something from a seller in Nevada, there is no justification for the tax.

That's not free trade though.

It isn't if the product is shipped from out of state.
It's just like mail order catalogs, only faster.

Those items should be taxed as well. Its unfair competition.

I never said Amazon paid the taxes. How ever as a consumer if I buy on-line and go to the check out and see tax even though the retailer is out of state, I hit the back button and look elsewhere. I'm not paying shipping AND tax too. It depends on which is more. If the state of California wants to kill the eTailers in this state, let'em. They'll end up with LESS tax dollars in their income tax coffers.

As I said before, if they demand sales tax on everything, I'll move my transaction server and bank account to a state that doesn't, all easily done on line. A forwarding P.O. Box and a business license in that state for an on line biz. The pay myself as the drop shipper in California.

1) Amazon typically gives you free shipping after 25 dollars
2) Your solution is going to cost you more
3) You don't want free and fair trade.

The absurd idea is that collecting sales taxes on online purchases from out of state is going to encourage retailers to go out of state. Huh? Wouldn't collecting taxes on local purchases, but not on out of state purchases encourage retailers to move out of state?

Or cause them to go out of business due to lack of buyers.
 
Last edited:
Can someone explain to me why amazon should get to pay less taxes than other businesses? I've read several pages of this thread but no one's really put forward a clear argument.
 
Can someone explain to me why amazon should get to pay less taxes than other businesses? I've read several pages of this thread but no one's really put forward a clear argument.

You see, it is not Amazon that is paying the tax, but the customers. The reason that they should not collect less in taxes is that it is unfair for the competition.
 
The absurd idea is that collecting sales taxes on online purchases from out of state is going to encourage retailers to go out of state. Huh? Wouldn't collecting taxes on local purchases, but not on out of state purchases encourage retailers to move out of state?

I'll try to explain it. Collecting sales taxes on online purchases from out of state is NOT going to encourage retailers to go out of state. It will encourage buyers to buy from retailers from out of state with no corporate presence in their own state. The retailers charging the tax will suffer as customers will simply shop elsewhere where they don't have to pay both the shipping and the tax. At some point the extra tax plus the shipping will cost more than shipping from Canada or Mexico and the purchases will go there.
 
Re: California Screws the Pooch. Amazon cuts ties

wow, I knew Kalifornia leads the states in deviancy but this is a new one:mrgreen:

Kalifornia loses how many millionaires a year?

You kind of surprise me Turtle. If I remember right, you are in favor of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. Would you really want to leave a big loophole there where people could avoid being taxed by buying things online?
 
I'll try to explain it. Collecting sales taxes on online purchases from out of state is NOT going to encourage retailers to go out of state. It will encourage buyers to buy from retailers from out of state with no corporate presence in their own state.

So, taxing online purchases is going to encourage people to buy online.

Hmm... nope. Still don't get that one.

It seems to me that not requiring out of state retailers to collect state taxes would encourage more people to buy online.

Maybe they're just so patriotic that they want to donate to their state or something.
 
So, taxing online purchases is going to encourage people to buy online.

Where did you come up with that? Taxing some online purchasesw will simply get people to look for the ones that don't.

Hmm... nope. Still don't get that one.

I'm sure you don't.

It seems to me that not requiring out of state retailers to collect state taxes would encourage more people to buy online.

Exactly. However, the the lack of tax offsets the shipping cost.

Maybe they're just so patriotic that they want to donate to their state or something.

If a company has a corporate presence in a state, they must collect that states sales tax.
 
Where did you come up with that? Taxing some online purchasesw will simply get people to look for the ones that don't.



I'm sure you don't.



Exactly. However, the the lack of tax offsets the shipping cost.



If a company has a corporate presence in a state, they must collect that states sales tax.

If it has a corporate presence? Where did that one come from? Online purchases are taxed in California, and have been for some time. The retailers who don't have a "corporate presence" being exempted is something new. Why should they be? What does "corporate presence" mean, anyway? If I own stock in Widgets R Us, and I live in California, then does that constitute a corporate presence?

All retailers should collect the same tax. Anything else simply gives some businesses an unfair advantage over the competition.
 
today: States court California companies - Jul. 12, 2011

we're outta here!

"buffeted by high taxes, strict regulations and uncertain state budgets, a growing number of california companies" are running to florida, texas, arizona, utah

and they're being actively wooed by people like rick scott, rick perry, jan brewer...

"companies are 'disinvesting' in california at a rate five times greater than just two years ago"

no wonder, the state is ranked the worst business climate in america 7 straight years

don't worry, tho

sf's gavin-so-good-looking-newsom, our new secretary of state out here, is off to TEXAS to learn from the MASTER

37% of all new jobs in the united states since the end of the recession in june, 09, are IN LONE STAR LAND

Richard Fisher, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, dropped by our offices this week and relayed a remarkable fact: Some 37% of all net new American jobs since the recovery began were created in Texas. Mr. Fisher's study is a lesson in what works in economic policy—and it is worth pondering in the current 1.8% growth moment.

Using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, Dallas Fed economists looked at state-by-state employment changes since June 2009, when the recession ended. Texas added 265,300 net jobs, out of the 722,200 nationwide, and by far outpaced every other state. New York was second with 98,200, Pennsylvania added 93,000, and it falls off from there. Nine states created fewer than 10,000 jobs, while Maine, Hawaii, Delaware and Wyoming created fewer than 1,000. Eighteen states have lost jobs since the recovery began.

Review & Outlook: The Lone Star Jobs Surge - WSJ.com

solutions, anyone?

leadership?

go, gavin, go!
 
Back
Top Bottom