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)
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!
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:Taxes (Score:5, Informative)
You must not live in Indiana then, because the maximum residential property-tax rate in the state is capped at 1%.
Re:Taxes (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I don't know about Indiana, but here where I live my local central appraisal district has appraised my house for about 3 times what I purchased it for (a foreclosure that sat on the market for 9 months before I found it, and despite all the talk about home values plummeting madly during the most recent recession, apparently someone forgot to tell the taxing authority, since my value certainly didn't drop any, and I'm guessing it didn't for anyone else either. So don't let that 1% fool you. There are other ways around THAT particular roadblock.
-Restil
Re:Taxes (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Taxes (Score:4, Funny)
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!
He doesn't use those things. He lives in his basement ;)
Re:Taxes (Score:5, Funny)
Correction:
He doesn't use those things. He lives in his parent's basement.
Re: (Score:3)
But of course, that money isn't really for those types of things. It goes to fund bureaucracy. And the bureaucrats always threaten to axe those essential services LONG before they would ever THINK about cutting down on their own workforce.
The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
Re:Taxes (Score:5, Interesting)
*some* of the malls? Almost all of them. Of course the Simon family is FROM indiana and the National headquarters is in Indy ( despite them having more properties in other states). The thing that's most annoying is that they have consistently been greedy when it comes to major decisions. Rather than invest heavily in Malls that were struggling to combat the economic down turn of the area ( i.e. Lafayette Square Mall ) they decided to put all their money into the northside malls, Castleton, Keystone, Carmel's Clay Terrace and Hamilton Town Center.
All of the latter malls would have kept on going fine without Simon beefing them up, and now Lafayette Square mall is defunct and they whole surrounding area has gone to hell in the last 10 years. Thankfully there's been the relocation of Best Buy and the new superwallmart to help breathe some life back in there, but that Simon abandoned that area completely should have been discouraged by the city.
it never used to be this way however... Simon changed to its greedy ways slowly as the founder Melvin Simon retired from the company in the 1990's and died a couple of years ago. They used to be a huge charitable organization and really helped the community. What a shame
Amazon has 3 distribution centers in Indiana and just announced a fourth one, and HAD AN EXISTING DEAL WITH INDIANA NOT TO CHARGE SALES TAX.
The only reason the state is pursing this now is to appease the Simon Family which is buddy buddy with many key legislators.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it, there is no justification for these taxes, except "I'm the state, gimme gimme gimme".
Re:Taxes (Score:4, Interesting)
The brick-and-mortar retailers should explain to Indiana voters how replacing the regressive state sales tax with a higher progressive income tax would benefit the 99%.
Tripple dipping (Score:2, Interesting)
They tax your money when you earn it. They tax it when you spend it. And they continue taxing you so long as you keep what you spent it on.
Also, they tax you extra for living in specific regions and again for working in specific regions, sometimes.
The only to escape taxes is to be very rich.
Humans are awesome.
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: (Score:3)
Sales taxes of all kinds can be considered 'double dipping' as your income is already taxed. Additionally, they are regressive taxes.
They are regressive, definitely, but not necessarily double dipping, as they are collected by different government entities. Some states have no or very low income tax, and for many of those that do the state income tax revenue barely makes it down to the local level - property and sales taxes generate most of the local city and county government revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
a private transaction.
LMAO!!! You just made my day.
Re:Taxes (Score:4, Interesting)
The power to tax is the power to destroy. The 14th Amendment specifically prevents laws from applying to different people in different ways. It was passed to prevent Jim Crow laws. This is just a 100% attack against a targeted business that is unconstitutional and bordering on the laws that prevented blacks from voting and serving on juries after the Civil War.
Re:Taxes (Score:4)
Amazon agreeing voluntarily to something is an attack?
Re:Taxes (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. There was Simon Malls instigated litgation, and three Amazon warehouses in Indiana (legal nexus under the US Constitution Commerce Clause) and Simon would win. In this case, Amazon got a two year abatement; otherwise they'd have to close up shop, move their distribution, and eventually have to charge an online sales tax that's being instigated in the US Congress. Amazon wins, temporarily.
WHY would there be sales taxes? (Score:4, Informative)
What service does the state provide that justifies charging a sales tax rate to out-of-state-businesses comparable to those of in-state businesses? While there is some use--i.e. the roads--for the most part the out-of-state business requires fewer state resources, and the state is not justified in collecting that tax on the basis of the business presence. That being said, sales taxes are formally taxes on people, which makes them superior in certain ways to income taxes--because they're closer to taxing *consumption*. Thus the state taxes the consumption of things consumed within the state. The problem with this, of course, is that it isn't nearly so redistributive as the income tax; the advantage is that it actually taxes monies other than ordinary income.
Meh. I'm not going to think about this now.
Re:WHY would there be sales taxes? (Score:5, Informative)
Amazon has three distribution centers in Indiana and they are getting ready to open the fourth. I live in Indiana and I have to pay says tax to other online retailers that have a presence in Indiana, but not Amazon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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...
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.
But not in VA (Score:5, Informative)
Amazon are about to open a new distribution center near Richmond VA, and local retailers are a bit pissed that Amazon will not be collecting sales tax from VA residents.
Amazon purchases to remain free of Va. sales taxes [timesdispatch.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Well this puts Amazon on a more even footing with Barnes and Noble, since they are stuck paying local taxes and are having trouble competing with Amazon.
Re:But not in VA (Score:5, Interesting)
Well this puts Amazon on a more even footing with Barnes and Noble, since they are stuck paying local taxes and are having trouble competing with Amazon.
Hmm, I sense the possibility of a science fiction story here. Some alternate future where "even footing" is not accomplished by removing impediments from those who are limited, but by adding impediments to those who are unfairly gifted.
All Hail the God of "Even Footing".
Re: (Score:3)
Even better, a readable copy of the story "Harrison Bergeron". [theamericanview.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like the state should have written its laws a bit different. Lexington, KY has a big distribution center and KY collects sales tax from those sales.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like the state should have written its laws a bit different. Lexington, KY has a big distribution center and KY collects sales tax from those sales.
Well from the article I quoted
Amazon has exploited a loophole by structuring its business operations in a way that its fulfillment centers are not legally considered the entity that makes the sale, and thus do not have to collect and remit sales taxes
So I am not sure how VA has structured its laws differently from other states that are collecting sales tax
Re: (Score:2)
That loophole probably only exists in VA. Most states it's "Has any presence what so ever". So even if they just have a distribution center they still collect taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Little Guy (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The only reason Indiana is collecting is because Amazon has 3 (soon to be 4) distribution plants in the state. They have a physical local presense & are 'part of the community' therefore they must pay the state taxes. If they want to be tax free for Indiana folks, close the plants, lay the workers off & stay in Washington.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a pretty free-market type guy, but this is really something the government should be handling. Currently, it's up to businesses to figure out all the different tax rates (or hire someone to do it) and apply them to their sales. F
Re: (Score:2)
There's COTS software you can buy to do this - no worries. I've written point of sale software in the past and it wasn't too difficult. For Texas, as I remember, the tax is figured at the place of business, so wherever those servers are performing the sale is where the tax will be set.
Re: (Score:2)
Just an assumption - but in this case I think the Texas state comptroller issues sales tax certificates - so they will set the rates.
I think that every state will eventually start issuing sales and use certificates for companies that want to sell into their state. That still won't be entirely fair, but it's the only simple solution I can imagine.
Re:The Little Guy (Score:5, Informative)
I think that every state will eventually start issuing sales and use certificates for companies that want to sell into their state.
States cannot regulate interstate commerce, that's explicitly reserved to Congress. Any solution will have to come from Congress.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Checks, really? Can't you just transfer money?
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: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: (Score:2)
Tax rates don't follow zip codes at all. A given taxing area may span multiple zip codes, and a zip code may (and probably does) cover multiple different tax areas. Furthermore, each taxing district may have it's own special rules and exemptions - it's never a simple percentage.
Got the tax code for every little county/town/tax district in the entire country handy? As a very small app seller, it's going to be a nightmare.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The first objection, that a taxing area may span multiple zip codes, is no objection at all. Knowledge of customer zip code would still tell you all you need to know about how much to tax a customer.
The second objection, that one zip code may cover multiple taxing areas, is more serious. However, I tend to doubt that there is any example of it. Can you cite one? It just wouldn't make sense, since it would basically make all mail order impossible to conduct.
In any case, as you point out, every individual sma
Re: (Score:3)
Zipcodes can and do span counties, much less cities. Some cities and counties have their own taxes (ie if you're in the county you pay an extra .5% and if you're in the city you pay the .5 and an additional .5 percent).
There are even zipcodes that span states. That's even more of a nightmare.
For example, some northern parts of Arkansas have the Protem Missouri Zip Code.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a nightmare.
ZIP codes are only intended to improve the efficiency of mail delivery. Using them for any other purpose is at one's own peril.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a city, which surrounds some unincorporated bits here and there. If my city had a city Sales tax, how would you distinguish between the the two sides of the street (literally) differently? Zip Code won't do it.
Granted this is hypothetical, since my city doesn't have a sales tax, but it easily could.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, this is easy. The zip code where I live covers areas both inside and outside of the limits of the city. The tax rate inside the city is different than the tax rate outside it.
Zip codes are set by the postal service, and don't generally follow boundaries set by the local government (which frequently change, unlike zip codes.) He's right, y
Re:The Little Guy (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't use just the 5-digit zip code, the full Zip+4 has to be used. For example, the Oklahoma tax calculator needs the Zip+4. http://oktax.csa.ou.edu/Rate_Locator/index.jsf [ou.edu]
For example, the zip code I live in, 80234, covers more than one county (Adams, and Broomfield), and about 7 different cities.
http://www.zipareacode.net/zip-code-80234.htm [zipareacode.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Tax rates don't follow zip codes at all. A given taxing area may span multiple zip codes, and a zip code may (and probably does) cover multiple different tax areas.
I'm sure there may be a tax area that spans multiple zip codes but that's not really an issue. But do you have an example of a zip code that covers multiple different tax areas? If so, how is the area and jurisdiction defined? Are these guys [zip2tax.com] full of it?
Re: (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia, there are several locations in which the location is in one state, but it's serviced from another (thus having the others zipcode). See the link below (towads the bottom of the section)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIP_code#By_geography [wikipedia.org]
You could likely differentiate by extended 4 to get the right tax amount, but you may not have the extended 4.. that would mean subscribing to a service that can locate it.
Re: (Score:3)
Are these guys [zip2tax.com] full of it?
No, but they actually support the person you are replying to. If you read their FAQ [zip2tax.com], it says:
Do tax jurisdictions match up with ZIP codes?
Sometimes tax districts are based on factors other than ZIP code. There are a few locations within certain states that have more than one tax jurisdiction for a single ZIP code. This can make it tricky to determine which rate to use based solely upon the 5 digit ZIP code.
We’ve made it possible for you determine which rate to use by providing multiple results for th
Re:The Little Guy (Score:4, Interesting)
Zip code's not enough. The item type itself will cause different tax rates. For example, clothes vs. housewares may have different sales tax rates. Carbonated beverages often have additional taxes that other products don't.
Furthermore, how the item will be used can vary how it is taxed. An example being Canada, where clothes bought for dependent children are tax exempt, but not clothes bought for oneself. You have to declare at the register how the tax will be applied. While this may seem extraordinary, it does happen in the US as well. Off the top of my head, I know that the sales tax for California is different for food sold as groceries vs. food sold for immediate consumption (on or off premises). Ordering a sandwich at Subway's "toasted" (aka heated) triggers a different tax rate at the register.
These arbitrary taxation systems exist at all levels of government (Federal, State, County, Municipality) and often there are further breakdowns for special economic zones or redevelopment areas.
Oh, and zip code lookup isn't enough. Zip codes are defined by the Postal Service and do not necessarily respect county and city borders. I have family members living within the city limits of one of the 10 largest cities in the US, yet their official zip code and street address belong to a neighboring suburb city (pop ~200,000). I guarantee a zip code lookup would result in the wrong tax rate.
Finally, in a zip-code lookup, which tax rate applies? Where the seller has their headquarters, where the distribution facility is, the purchaser's billing address, or the delivery address? They could all be in the state and easily still have different tax rates.
Re: (Score:3)
If only there were some automated system we could use to retrieve the tax % breakdown given a zipcode.
The problem is zip code is not fine-grained enough to cover the different tax jurisdictions.
For example: California has multiple overlapping tax rates ranging from state, to county, to city, to school district, to water district, etc. The tax rate can literally be different from one side of the street to the other. Also the changes in the tax rates do not occur on a single date. Many of these taxes were created through special ballot initiatives to pay for specific public works, and run for a period of t
Stock up while you can (Score:2)
I actually agree it's an unfair advantage over brick and mortar stores but I'll still miss nontax purchasing anyway.
Re: (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: (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: (Score:3)
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: we got what we voted for? (Score:3)
If you ask me, it's becoming more clear all the time that it's not as simple as the American public "getting what we voted for, or not voting at all" that's caused the mess we're in.
The system has always been heavily biased towards only the wealthy succeeding in a political career, but that's evolved from a perfectly acceptable reality (where wealthy folks who actually cared about the future of the country could dedicate some of their time and resources towards steering it in what they felt was the right di
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot about that other class of people: "I voted and the retarded majority won again."
Representative government doesn't mean that you're entitled to have your candidate win.
Re:Bullshit with the best (Score:5, Informative)
Agreed. I have resided in and worked long-term in many countries including the US, Australia, several Asian and European countries. I definitely paid less tax in the US than I ever did in any other country (on a similar income).
US income taxes are generally lower than other developed countries for most income brackets. This is especially true at the middle-high income level (the top US Federal income tax rate is 35%, compared to 50+% in most of Europe and 45% in Australia, and it kicks in at a higher income). The exception is low-income earners, who pay more in the US than in other countries (many countries have a 0% tax bracket for the first $x of income per year, but US income taxes kick in from the first dollar).
US sales taxes are lowish too, compared with, say, 15-20% VAT seen in much of Europe, or 10% GST in Australia etc. (As an aside, they are also ridiculously complex, varying from State to State, county to county and even city to city - seems like a massive administrative burden compared to the single, flat rate seen almost everywhere else. In fact in most other places, the sales tax/VAT/GST is included in the advertised cost of the item, so if it says $20 on the shelf, it's actually $20 when you get to the counter ... not $20 + 5.75% or whatever random percentage the state/county applies. That always drives me nuts when I'm in the US)
Re: (Score:3)
The exception is low-income earners, who pay more in the US than in other countries (many countries have a 0% tax bracket for the first $x of income per year, but US income taxes kick in from the first dollar).
That's kind of disingenuous. Low-income people have lots of deductions and credits. When I was a poor broke college student earning $15,000 a year in a part-time job, I actually had negative tax liabilities, one year to the tune of about $350.
Not saying I'd rather be poor again, just saying, it's not as extreme as you make it out to be.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be confusing federal sales tax with state and locality taxes.
The US has no sales tax. At all.
Individual states and localities do.
Here in Indiana, the sales tax is 7% (except on food items), then in my county there's an additional 1% food-and-drink tax for restaurants. Thanks Colts!
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?
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't taxing the company, they're taxing the buyer. Amazon just agreed (without being forced to, at least from what I can tell) to collect the money right at the time of sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The state didn't file any lawsuit, though. Amazon itself agrees there should be legislation and that they should collect the tax.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon has a physical presence in Indiana. They have been operating a distribution center there. This is not interstate commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
please point out where in the constitution does it guarantee tax free interstate commerce
Re:Bad precedent (Score:4, Informative)
Since congress has not levied an excise or impost upon interstate transactions, and the states do not have the power to do such, then we are guaranteed, via the US Constitution, of tax-free interstate commerce, with respect to any sales tax.
Re: (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 technophil
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Bingo. Expecting Internet retailers to collect your sales tax is another case of fscking over the little guy who can't afford to waste their time collecting dozens of taxes for different states.
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: (Score:2)
Uhh, Amazon is operating one or more facilities in Indiana now: http://www.theindychannel.com/money/27824383/detail.html [theindychannel.com] ..so good on Indiana for holding them to the same rules to which they hold other mail-order operations.
Amazon tried and got away with this shit in South Carolina - they scored a sales tax exemption despite setting up operations in the state:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/amazon-warehouse-spartanburg-county_n_1140145.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Now, why does Amazon get sales tax exemption with their nex
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't Amazon's fault if the state doesn't charge the shippers enough to pay for the roads.
I live in Indiana (Score:3)
And Amazon has been collecting taxes from me for ages. What the hell were those taxes?
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: (Score:2)
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?
That local store receives services from the local taxation district and Amazon does not. That local store chose to set up shop where they did, knowing that they had an additional cost to pass on to the customer. Mailorder isn't new. Sears and JCPenny were founded to deal with it, and their catalogs kept many rural residents warm and clean for decades.
What other costs accepted by the local stores should be arbitrarily added to the mail order companies just to make things "fair"? Should Amazon be charged "p
Just paid tax on an Amazon purchase today (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
expatriate ripoffs (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Amazon themselves saying that the legislation should be passed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...could lower the overall manpower burden of the tax system, freeing up more of the taxes for doing what they are actually for.
I'm pretty sure the tax system today is used as a competitive advantage by large companies to squash small competitors. Large entities get breaks, grants and use foreign loopholes to funnel cash and avoid some legitimate taxes all together.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like some enterprising person could establish a business with an address in another state that would act as your shipping address (which I'm sure is how they figure out whether to collect the tax) and then forward packages on to residents of Indiana. It would only be viable for expensive items, but it'd probably be worthwhile enough of the time.
It's a great idea, but I'm afraid this business would immediately get shut down as a fraud. Somebody who is not the buyer effectively posing as the buyer would be frowned upon.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a great idea, but I'm afraid this business would immediately get shut down as a fraud. Somebody who is not the buyer effectively posing as the buyer would be frowned upon.
And yet, they exist today. Google "remailing services". Top of the sponsored links:USA2ME [usa2me.com].
Nobody is "effectively posing" as anyone. You're using a ship-to address that shows up one place, and you are paying someone there to reship it. Who cares if it is "frowned upon" as long as it is legal?