Amazon To Collect Indiana Sales Tax In 2014 413
An anonymous reader writes with this quote from an Associated Press report:
"Amazon.com will begin collecting Indiana's 7 percent sales tax from customers in the state in 2014, under an agreement announced Monday. ... Gov. Mitch Daniels' office said Indiana will become the fourth state with such a tax collection agreement with Seattle-based Amazon. It follows a lawsuit by Indianapolis-based shopping mall owner Simon Property Group against the state over the issue and a lobbying push on state legislators by traditional retailers to end what they call an unfair price advantage for online retailers. The deal doesn’t include any other companies, but Daniels said the state is asking Congress to require all online businesses to collect state sales taxes."
Taxes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Sales taxes of all kinds can be considered 'double dipping' as your income is already taxed. Additionally, they are regressive taxes.
When doing business with amazon, you are entering into a private transaction that is (probably) not within the state's borders or jurisdiction, unless Amazon is incorporated in that state. Congress is granted the right to regulate interstate commerce, they have not done so in this case. They're also required to make such duties equal across all 50 states, which is probably not going to be a popular move.
So in general I think this is a bad thing, and the only thing worse would be for brick-and-mortar retailers to lobby congress and make it legal.
Bad precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
This, along with the other states that already got in on this, sets a really bad precedent. Taxing companies that don't exist in that state is really overstepping the bounds of the U.S. Constitution. Can each state start setting their own tariffs next?
Another reason not to move to Indiana (Score:2, Insightful)
What I remember most about the state are the tolls on I80. They must like their taxes!
Filed Under "W" For "Whatever" (Score:5, Insightful)
The only beneficiary of this will be the state of Indiana. Amazon's prices are already (typically) lower than what I can get them for in a store and I don't have to put up with parking lots, shitty cashiers, nor someone trying to pressure me into getting the "extended warranty". I don't have to wander around the store trying to find it, and I don't have to deal with my items either not being carried by them or else out of stock. And now Amazon has the right to demand the same level of government services that the brick-and-mortar retailers are getting. So 3 years from now, when the anachronistic "main street" retailers finally figure out that sales tax wasn't the issue, it will likely be too late for them to do anything about it.
Fair's fair. (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as the tax goes --- I don't buy it. Local taxes help pay for local services. The fireman will come if there's a fire in their shop. Amazon already pays taxes in the location where they do business, and the fireman will come if there's a fire in their warehouse. And UPS and other shippers pay taxes where they operate, too.
Re:The Little Guy (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, can that same system automatically write the appropriate checks to the dozens (or hundreds, in states with county / city level taxes) of different government entities on the right time schedule for each one, keeping track of all of it in case of an audit, and not costing enough to drive a small business into debt? Yeah, didn't think so...
Re:Stock up while you can (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow you know this country's in the toilet when you see comments expecting the government to ruin a good thing. 200 years ago we fought for lower taxes with representation. The irony is that now we don't have proper representation and we have some of the highest taxes in the world.
Re:Stock up while you can (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony is that now we don't have proper representation and we have some of the highest taxes in the world.
Our taxes aren't particularly high for a developed country, and if we aren't properly represented it's because we got what we voted for, or didn't vote.
Re:Taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the purchasers still owe sales/use taxes to the state. Your transaction with Amazon is no more "private" than with a local grocery store.
Fair request (Score:4, Insightful)
First off, none of us like paying taxes, including sales tax. This legislation in question won't do away with sales taxes, and the discussion here should not really be about the legality of sales taxes.
With that disclaimer out of the way, I agree with the business owners. If I can buy something on line and not pay sales tax so get the good cheaper, how is that fair to a local store that must charge the sales tax? Simply put, it's not fair at all. Taxes should be based on the consumer's location, not the outlet's location. We do the same with insurance premiums, some interest rates, etc..
The loophole for internet stores hurts smaller businesses. It favors large companies that can pack up and move to places with the lowest tax rates to attract consumers. Much the same way that interest rate premiums favor the state with the highest legal rates *caugh* Delaware *caugh*.
As long as taxes are legal, I am all for making them as fair as possible.
Re:Taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Speak for yourself! I live in Indiana! Simon Property Group is a greedy company that have taken over many Malls across Indiana! I"m still going to shop online -- price and selection can not be beat!
And now you will be paying to have police and roads and schools while you shop online, yay!
Good, More Progress! (Score:2, Insightful)
This is really overdue. Not only does sales tax exemption create an unfair advantage for out-of-state retailers (which is bad for the local and thus national economy), it depletes funding for civilization. And yes, Amazon does use public infrastructure to operate its business and no, shippers do not pay the Amazon's share of that infrastructure. Amazon uses all sorts of local services. Amazon operates as part of our civilization and thus should be contributing to its upkeep.
Re:Taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
And now you will be paying to have police and roads and schools while you shop online, yay!
I already pay for police and roads and schools while I shop online, because I shop online from the comfort of my own home, upon which I pay outrageous property taxes.
Re:Bad precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazon can keep track of the laws in every square mile of the US without causing any discernible dip in their revenues. Granted this may be a headache for a small winery trying to sell online perhaps but Amazon isn't in that category.
Normally states do not care about the small guys. It is up to the individual citizens to report and pay their sales tax often. The states are going after the big online retailers because they are seriously disrupting brick-and-mortar retail operations. Maybe some technophiles may wish these small retailers to go out of business and die so that everything can be online only (saves the hassle of leaving mom's basement) but it is a major economic burden. Business go under, jobs get lost, tax revenue for small towns shrink even more, etc. You can't just excuse this by just applauding Amazon for gaming the system better than anyone else.
Re:Taxes (Score:4, Insightful)
Not all states have income taxes.
And it's not double dipping if the state income tax would have been higher if sales tax weren't there to keep the budget balanced.
Re:Stock up while you can (Score:3, Insightful)
Our taxes aren't particularly high, but if you raised taxation to the level needed to support the current spending levels (about 40% of GDP at all levels I think) they would be amazingly high.
Yes, we probably need to raise taxes, but what we really really really have to do is cut spending.
Just so long as.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we probably need to raise taxes, but what we really really really have to do is cut spending.
I disagree that spending cuts are the major priority; we could cut plenty of things plenty deeply, yes, but there's really no sustainable path on which we can continue to charge as little as we do in tax. It's basically impossible to charge the lowest rates in the developed world while simultaneously dominating the planet in military power AND science AND culture AND economic production, yet people seem to believe we can do just that if only we cut spending and lower taxes even further.
But so long as you admit taxes should go up, I can agree with looking at spending first. It's certainly responsible to use what you have more carefully before you ask for more. Just so long as you're not one of those dumb fucks who thinks cutting spending alone can fix the problem we'll get along fine....
I know that's inflammatory language, but seriously: who can be stupid enough to look at our federal budget and think we can even balance the deficit, much less pay off some debt, with spending cuts alone. It's a truly asinine notion, one which any fourth grade math assignment can easily refute, and yet it captivates (imprisons, at this point) a major political party.
My brain almost refuses to believe that anyone could be so ignorant, so selfish and deluded, as to think fully 30% of our federal budget is waste and inexcusable handouts, all of which can be slashed without any remorse or negative consequences at all.
And if you really want to have fun, look at the things Republicans want to cut out, and then look at the fraction of the budget they represent. The NIH, the NSF, foreign aid, the national endowment for the arts, public broadcasting money....all of that put together isn't even 0.5%, and yet they harp on each of those things, individually and extensively, like they're the pinnacle of waste and socialist excess.
God dammit, I'm gonna need some heart medication soon.
Re:WHY would there be sales taxes? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a tax on the business, it's a tax on the buyer. The difference here is not that the buyer is not still supposed to pay, it's that Amazon will now handle the collection, because that's 1000x times more efficient than trying to enforce it for every single person in the state(s) collecting it.
And, the complaint from in-state businesses is not that the Amazon, etc is using resources of their state, it's that they are able to compete unfairly with a sometimes 9+% price break. Sure, it can hurt huge companies like Wal-mart with a physical presence in all states, but ironically it's even *worse* for the small, local businesses who are already being hurt by Wal-mart's physical presence...
It's not that fucking hard.... (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I'm getting very tired of the several dozen comments per Amazon-related thread about how hard it is to manage the different tax zones, what a massive unfair burden it is for online retailers, how even attempting to comply would obliterate any seller smaller than Amazon or eBay in a blinding flash of red-tape, etc.
It's not that hard; not even at this moment is it anywhere near as difficult as you claim, but under any decently written law it would be a complete non-issue. The state could simply require the municipal party responsible for any layer of sales tax - mayors' offices, county commissioners, etc. - to enter their tax rules and proportions into a state database in a standard format. Then any moron could write code to parse that database, populate their sales system, and correctly tax a solid 95% of purchases with no further effort. In fact, it would be perfectly reasonable if the state required cities and counties to enter into my hypothetical database the correct tax jurisdictions for each and every property they contained. They already have to assess and charge those lands correctly for property and utility tax; it's just one more small step in a dance of surveying, assessment, and classification they already perform every year.
So there's no good reason sales taxation couldn't become easier, for physical and online stores alike, under a properly written e-commerce law. Come up with some real arguments, please. I may agree with you on the underlying point, that sales tax and complex taxes in general both suck, but it makes me nauseated seeing supporters of my ideals hiding en masse behind such a piss-poor construct.
The little guy is screwed. (Score:4, Insightful)
The last version of quickbooks I have installed doesn't have the option to pay appropriate taxes for all government entities involved for a small scale E-merchant. I know my local bookkeeper can't handle that either. I imagine Quickbooks could start adding features for this but damn, sending checks to every city/state/town is gonna be annoying as hell. I know I have to pay my local township taxes in a check or money order and assume this will be the case for almost every entity. More expense, joy!
Then you get to the harder issues. Forget writing your own ecommerce site. Forget using open source e-commerce software. To keep track of this data, which could end up making a company liable for large fines, means you'll have to hire a company since you can't trust to be indemnified otherwise. This is actually a huge win for amazon, you're going to have to use amazon or ebay or other large companies just to keep your small businesses e-commerce operating. That could up the cost significantly.
Re:WHY would there be sales taxes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The little guy is screwed. (Score:5, Insightful)
A zip code isn't enough to calculate a tax rate. There are county level taxes and country boundaries are not necessarily zip code boundaries. So you have to know what county the address is located in.
Furthermore, certain items are tax exempt or taxed at different rates, and not every jurisdiction has the same exemptions and rates. So you may not only need a database of rates at every level of government, but also a database of what is taxable for every level of government of every jurisdiction in the country.
Furthermore, certain jurisdictions have tax holidays so you somehow need to find these out for every jurisdiction in the country every day, while you check to see if anyone has changed their tax rate(s).
So what makes more sense, having every individual find their own solution to this problem, or have the entity responsible for the problem and receiving the money come up with a single solution and indemnify the businesses that use it against any inaccuracies present in the database?
Re:Taxes (Score:4, Insightful)
Well good for them. I don't really see a problem with this.
Well then you need a new set of glasses. The sales tax you don't pay (because the online retailer isn't using state and local services such as police/fire protection, roads (UPS and USPS pay for those on Amazon deliveries), utilities, or any other service is rather offset by the delivery charge that you do pay. That makes it pretty much a wash. For local retailers to whine that It's Just Not Fair is simply whining that they don't have a monopoly over your purchases any longer. They have to compete in a more modern world for your dollars, or find a new way to flog their buggy whips.
You're right, but those guys are full of shit, too (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but the flip side of that is the people screaming "make the rich pay their fair share!!!" as if that will fix the entire problem. That's not going to be even close to enough.
That's quite true. Making only the rich pay more will not be enough; not by most persons' definition of 'rich', anyway.
What bothers me most about the 'rich paying more' debate, however, is the lying responses from the politicians and think-tanks paid to glorify the wealthy, justify flat-taxes, and vilify the bottom 2/3 as selfish profligates sucking at the socialist teat. You see bullshit statements like "even if we took the entire income of the top 1% every year we'd only solve 1/6 of the deficit" or "even if the marginal rate on the top quintile went up by 15% a that would only fix 1/2 of the deficit alone, much less the debt" or one Republican candidate's favorite "54% of Americans pay no tax at all.
First, the top 1% generally have assets far in excess of their yearly 'Income', or even their real income. It's almost outright lying to look at a guy with assets in the billions and say that taking all of his Income every year wouldn't help because his income is only in the tens of millions. Not to mention that tons of that money - for many of the 1% virtually all of it- stays permanently in investment vehicles or goes through enough (technically legal) money laundering to make a Mafioso blush. It's either never technically income despite being economic power, solely controlled by an individual, which is equal to the lifetime output of dozens or hundreds or thousands of people working at the median national salary, or it was hidden from taxation outright. Either rewrite the tax code literally from scratch, or punish their decades of shirking by taxing the extremely wealthy on their assets (even as a one-time event), and the top 1% could indeed put a huge frickin dent in our budget problems.
Second, quintile-based arguments conveniently ignore the fact that even the second quintile from the top bottoms out at $55,000. That's already an acceptable living in all but a handful of cities, and the numbers only go up from there. In most cities the top 40% can easily afford to pay another 1 or 5 or 10% in federal tax per year, to say nothing of what the top 20% and top 1% can afford. I am not saying it wouldn't hurt, but real taxes - the kind that can actually sustain a first-world nation with 350 million people, the world's best educational and scientific capabilities, and a military bigger than the entire planet put together ever had up until the first world war - might have to hurt a bit sometimes.
But the worst of all is probably the argument that the bottom x% pay nothing at all (those greedy little parastic fuckers!). The truth is, the bottom x% pay no final income tax, after their deductions and refunds are processed; when you ask non-partisan analysts and think-tanks who specialize in tax they'll tell you that even the very bottom 1% pay at least 15% of their income in various taxes on property, utilities, retail sales, where even the top 1% pay only 30-35% across all types of tax.
I just can't seem to feel bad that people with six, seven, eight, and fucking nine figure incomes pay twice as much tax as the dirt poor. Can you? A lot of people, from the filthy rich to the upper-middle-middle class who just wish they were, need to shut up and pay their damn share. Before hey find people with pitchforks at their doorsteps. I'm not some militant communist whacko, not in the least, but I'm also not kidding when I say that. Just because the standard of living is so high that only the destitute in America have any serious complaints to make versus any other nation or time in history doesn't mean people don't notice the looting and abuse going on. Just because they have TV and cell phones and generally have heat in the winter doesn't mean the bottom 40% are happy struggling to pay for their healthc
Re:WHY would there be sales taxes? (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in Indiana and I have to pay says tax to other online retailers that have a presence in Indiana, but not Amazon.
Because they aren't really "Amazon.com" distribution centers, perhaps?
Because those "distribution centers" are most likely owned by a different company who just happens to have the name "Amazon" in their name, and just so happens to have an agreement with Amazon.Com that requires acquisition and shipment of materials on Amazon.com's instruction?
Think of it this way... you can have a website named Amazon.com that has a large number of affiliates. The internet-based web site creates an illusion that you are dealing with one company, when you are actually dealing with a multi-level marketing scheme, and Amazon.COM is just the "image" and DBA you, the end user see.
So, when you "order" an item, the order can transparently be sent to an "Affiliate" network member corporation that doesn't have any presence in the buyer's state, e.g. California if the buyer is in Indiana.
Meanwhile... if someone in California buys something, their order could be sent to an Affiliate in Indiana whom will be the party they are legally buying the item from.
And then the Amazon.com website's role is just a "Payment processor" and "Order aggregation" company, for the affiliate networks; they bring all the order to one place, and make the process of selecting the optimal affiliate invisible to the end-user.
Re:Taxes (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it, there is no justification for these taxes, except "I'm the state, gimme gimme gimme".