|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: The Amazon Tax started by: GORDON Posted by GORDON on Apr. 11 2008,23:42
< http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news....ork.htm >Tax free online shopping may be coming to an end. Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 12 2008,04:15
QUOTE The so-called "Amazon tax" closes a loophole for Internet retailers... Oh, it's a LOOPHOLE. Well, gotta close those loopholes. QUOTE New York expects the new requirement will generate about $50 million in revenue this fiscal year. That's the real reason, right there. QUOTE They argued that compelling merchants to adhere to the complexities of the state and local tax codes would place an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. My wife just started a business, and from listening to her, it sounds like INTRAstate commerce is no cakewalk. You gotta know what county a customer lives in, maybe even city. We only have 100 counties here, though. Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2008,10:41
Eh, it's only a matter of time before humanity fucks up the net & someone else invents yet another communication alternative.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 12 2008,11:52
(thibodeaux @ Apr. 12 2008,07:15) QUOTE QUOTE They argued that compelling merchants to adhere to the complexities of the state and local tax codes would place an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. My wife just started a business, and from listening to her, it sounds like INTRAstate commerce is no cakewalk. You gotta know what county a customer lives in, maybe even city. We only have 100 counties here, though. There are software packages for that, that can tell you county/city/etc for whatever address you enter. I can't remember the name of the one I went to a class for 8 years ago, but I did. It was in Philli. Posted by unkbill on Apr. 12 2008,13:51
(GORDON @ Apr. 12 2008,11:52) QUOTE (thibodeaux @ Apr. 12 2008,07:15) QUOTE QUOTE They argued that compelling merchants to adhere to the complexities of the state and local tax codes would place an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. My wife just started a business, and from listening to her, it sounds like INTRAstate commerce is no cakewalk. You gotta know what county a customer lives in, maybe even city. We only have 100 counties here, though. There are software packages for that, that can tell you county/city/etc for whatever address you enter. I can't remember the name of the one I went to a class for 8 years ago, but I did. It was in Philli. Or when I ship kites out of state I just say screw it. I pay state taxes for different countys in Ohio. That is bitch enough. Then I forgot and the penalty on forgetting to send 20$ is 80$. I almost cancelled my licence and say screw it you won't get any. Posted by GORDON on Apr. 12 2008,15:43
Vertex software, I think. Zip code gets you city and county, for tax purposes.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Apr. 12 2008,17:22
State of Ohio has a sight called "The Finder" we check every tax return for city and school district taxes. They have been wrong more than once
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 12 2008,20:30
(Mommy Dearest @ Apr. 12 2008,20:22) QUOTE State of Ohio has a sight called "The Finder" we check every tax return for city and school district taxes. They have been wrong more than once "State of Ohio" website is a government entity. Vertex is a private company and they have actual consequences for having a bad product. Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2008,21:22
(GORDON @ Apr. 12 2008,22:30) QUOTE (Mommy Dearest @ Apr. 12 2008,20:22) QUOTE State of Ohio has a sight called "The Finder" we check every tax return for city and school district taxes. They have been wrong more than once "State of Ohio" website is a government entity. Vertex is a private company and they have actual consequences for having a bad product. Like Macroshaft faces consequences for a bad OS? Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 13 2008,11:21
If the bill passes in NY, I can see two things happening. Some major retailers who don't already operate in NY will (for awhile at least) stop doing business with NY state. Amazon might do this, for example, although probably not for very long. The second will be that many many many retailers will just ignore the law, and NY state will have their hands full trying to deal with thousands of out-of-state retailers ignoring their tax laws entirely.It'll be a huge unenforcable mess. And then NY will bitch and scream and we'll get a federal law about it passed that will make things even worse, and will be ignored by the rest of the world (and some major internet retailers will shift their business overseas to allow them to ignore it). Hard to say how it will eventually end up. Mabye the government will finally admit there's something they can't effectively tax. Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 13 2008,11:54
(TPRJones @ Apr. 13 2008,13:21) QUOTE Mabye the government will finally admit there's something they can't effectively tax. The day that happens is the day I quit drinking. Cos obviously the world'll be fucked up enough to the point where no amount of chemicals would let me make sense of it. Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 13 2008,12:33
Admittedly I may be being overly optimistic on that point.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 13 2008,12:52
(TPRJones @ Apr. 13 2008,14:33) QUOTE Admittedly I may be being overly optimistic on that point. Come on, the modern U.S. gov't has the greatest extortion scheme ever. Give them enough protection money or they'll send the enforcers out to retrieve you, seize your assets, and then put your life on hold for a few years (cos killing isn't good for PR). There's a completely legitimate reason to pay that cash, too. Supposed to protect you from the rest of the world. There's a great deal of debate that goes on as to just how much safety is guaranteed. Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 13 2008,13:41
True, but the ultimate end game of this scenario has us invading every other country in the world that has internet access and sells goods to US citizens through it. There comes a point where that sort of thing just isn't practical, and even the biggest idiots in Congress would be hard pressed to avoid admitting it.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 13 2008,14:45
Yeah, we'd never < send aircraft in to fuck with citizens of another country > cos they might sell something to us.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 13 2008,16:16
Sure we would! But would we attack all of them? Probably not.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 13 2008,16:19
(TPRJones @ Apr. 13 2008,18:16) QUOTE Sure we would! But would we attack all of them? Probably not. Not all at once. But maybe one by one. Posted by GORDON on Apr. 16 2008,00:40
Similar shit currently in congress.< http://www.news.com/8301-10...._3-0-20 > Looks like America has declared war on Amazon. Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 16 2008,03:58
I like porn.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 16 2008,09:18
(GORDON @ Apr. 16 2008,02:40) QUOTE Similar shit currently in congress. < http://www.news.com/8301-10...._3-0-20 > Looks like America has declared war on Amazon. QUOTE But state tax collectors have long complained that in practice, that just doesn't happen, and that money has been unfairly left in taxpayers' pocketbooks. Emphasis mine. Unfairly? It's unfair that I keep more of my own money? Yeah, what a fucking crime. QUOTE Verenda Smith, government affairs associate for the Federation of Tax Administrators, framed the decision as a moral one of sorts: "Do you want to be a good American, or do you want to be an American who wants to cheat your government deliberately? It's a harsh way to look at it, but it's true." Once my gov't stops cheating me, I'll stop cheating it. Till then, go fuck yourself with a wheat thresher. Posted by GORDON on May 02 2008,08:58
Amazon sues the State of New York.< http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008....hnology > Posted by Malcolm on May 02 2008,09:15
I find it unlikely that "tax them" will be overturned by "don't tax them."
Posted by GORDON on May 02 2008,09:43
I just hate how every time there's a law someone doesn't like, it is refered to as a "loophole." No, it isn't a loophole. They actually meant it when they said companies didn't need to collect sales taxes for states in which they had no physical presence.
Posted by TPRJones on May 02 2008,12:37
From the way it's written, the most likely result will be that affiliates and referrers will no longer be allowed if they have a New York address. That'd be a lot cheaper then not doing business with the state at all, and would accomplish the same goal of having them avoid having to collect the tax.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 27 2008,05:49
Open rebellion from newegg.com. They said FUCK THIS and stopped collecting sales tax in NY.< http://news.slashdot.org/news/08/08/27/0230233.shtml > Posted by Leisher on Aug. 27 2008,07:06
Good.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 27 2008,11:58
Interesting to see what New York does now.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 16 2009,20:59
Still trying for the amazon tax:< http://news.cnet.com/8301-13....sArea.0 > QUOTE If a little-known but influential alliance of state politicians, large retailers, and tax collectors have their way, the days of tax-free Internet shopping may be nearly over. A bill expected to be introduced in the U.S. Congress as early as Monday would rewrite the ground rules for mail order and Internet sales by eliminating what its supporters view as a "loophole" that, in many cases, allows Americans to shop over the Internet without paying sales taxes. Yes, we really need to tax our way out of this recession. Now more than ever. Posted by GORDON on Apr. 21 2009,17:56
More on the amazon tax:< http://www.butasforme.com/2009....hopping > More on Obama's campaign promises: < http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post....mZkN2M= > QUOTE In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. Funny... if they start taxing amazon, it is going to cost me more than a dime in taxes. Something is askew. Posted by Mommy Dearest on Apr. 21 2009,20:38
Hate to tell you but this is nothing new. For at least seven years there has been a line on the State of Ohio tax forms to report any and all internet purchases that you have not paid sales tax on. The only new thing is that the states want the feds to govern the whole process so that it can be collected from the source rather than expecting the taxpayer to volutarily pay this tax. Nothing to see here folks. Move along please.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 22 2009,07:21
So all 50 states have that "internet purchases" on their tax forms?
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 22 2009,07:49
I guess Obama was speaking for Ohio when he said "no new taxes, not one dime." Everyone else got lied to, though.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Apr. 22 2009,09:10
Don';t know about all 50 but would guess anyone with a sales tax has it. Mi and Oh for sure. And it is not new, about 5 years old. They actually call it a Use Tax lol
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Apr. 22 2009,09:12
A couple of interesting excise taxes I ran into today that are also not new.Excise taxes on: Fishing rods Fishing reels tackle boxes Arrow Shafts. Put your imagination to work and figure those out. Posted by GORDON on Apr. 22 2009,09:22
What is an excise tax.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 22 2009,09:31
Texas has (and has had it from when the sales tax was first passed) a Use Tax of 8% as well. Individuals and business are supposed to file and pay 8% tax on all untaxed purchases that were untaxed for non-approved reasons. As written this would include all untaxed internet purchases, although I've never seen nor heard of that being enforced.In practice only businesses do it, and likely not all of them. Posted by GORDON on Apr. 22 2009,09:51
Well, philosophically speaking, is an unenforced tax that no one pays... actually a tax? And is the amazon tax now going to be enforced, which is going to be tax money that I didn't used to pay, and now I am? I know for a fact it will reduce my online expenditures by whatever the percentage of the tax, is. I have a fixed monthly amount that I have put aside for frivolous expenditures. That amount will soon be reduced by X%, because of these politicians.But since I'm the only person in the country this will affect, I'm sure there will be no long term effects on manufacturers who sell on amazon. Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 22 2009,09:54
Technically as a citizen of Texas I could perhaps get away with not paying this new tax by paying my Texas Use Tax. 'Cause then I'd be double-taxed.If nothing else that's enough standing to start a lawsuit over it. Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 22 2009,13:52
I've been paying estimated use taxes to NC, so it's here as well.
Posted by Vince on Apr. 22 2009,19:17
Not in TN
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 26 2009,13:10
Amazon cuts relationships with NC affiliates.< http://www.news-record.com/content....iliates > QUOTE “We are writing from the Amazon Associates Program to notify you that your Associates account has been closed as of June 26, 2009,” reads and e-mail Amazon sent to its affiliates today. “This is a direct result of the unconstitutional tax collection scheme expected to be passed any day now by the North Carolina state legislature (the General Assembly) and signed by the governor.”
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 26 2009,14:08
QUOTE reads and e-mail Slackers. Posted by GORDON on Jun. 27 2009,07:16
Best explanation for these laws I've ever seen:QUOTE Amazon does not use any resources provided by the local state government. And yet they would be expected to pay for them? That's called "theft". They use no public roads (delivery companies pay for those through gasoline taxes and vehicle registration payments). They use no police services (they have no physical presence in NC so they have nothing to protect there). They can't take advantage of NC education (since they don't live there, their children can't go to school there). And yet NC thinks they have the right to shake down Amazon? Every honest men hopes this withdrawal of Amazon affiliation takes as heavy toll on NC economy as possible. This type of punishment of thieves would only be just.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Jun. 27 2009,08:11
(GORDON @ Jun. 27 2009,10:16) QUOTE Best explanation for these laws I've ever seen: QUOTE Amazon does not use any resources provided by the local state government. And yet they would be expected to pay for them? That's called "theft". They use no public roads (delivery companies pay for those through gasoline taxes and vehicle registration payments). They use no police services (they have no physical presence in NC so they have nothing to protect there). They can't take advantage of NC education (since they don't live there, their children can't go to school there). And yet NC thinks they have the right to shake down Amazon? Every honest men hopes this withdrawal of Amazon affiliation takes as heavy toll on NC economy as possible. This type of punishment of thieves would only be just. Good quote but the tax is paid by the consumer or passed to the consumer and that consumer is benefitting from everything stated. Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 27 2009,08:17
Yeah, it's a consumption tax, not an income tax. Thus, it taxes the persons consuming, who do live in that state.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 27 2009,09:11
Somehow that makes it sound even worse.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 27 2009,09:31
(GORDON @ Jun. 27 2009,12:11) QUOTE Somehow that makes it sound even worse. Well, it's the same thing you're paying at other stores. Posted by GORDON on Jun. 27 2009,10:00
But it isn't really what's going on in NC. Amazon has cut off affiliates there because the NC legislature is trying to decide that affiliates = physical presence in the state, for taxes. So, instead of giving in to that bullshit, amazon decided, "ok, fine, fuck you, do without our business with your affiliates at all."If NC wants to fuck with consumption taxes, fine. Enforce consumption taxes on top of income taxes on top of every other tax. I still applaud amazon for their actions, and fuck the tax-hungry governments. Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 27 2009,10:12
It's not just a physical presence per se, it's nexus. Which is more complicated.QUOTE A little bit of history helps put this law into context. The Supreme Court has held that a state can only impose sales or use tax-collection obligations on an out-of-state retailer if the retailers has a "substantial nexus" with the state (the Quill decision). Nexus occurs from a sufficient physical presence, which can be an office or warehouse, but physical presence can also derive from soliciting a state's consumers via sales representatives located in the state. However, it can't be just any sales rep, according to another Supreme Court case -- in-state representatives must be "significantly associated with the taxpayer's ability to establish and maintain a market in the state" At any rate, I agree with "fuck them" I had a political survey the other day about the funding gap in NC, and nowhere was "reduce pensions" or "outsource shit the government sucks at" or anything like that. It was all cut education, raise taxes, or cut programs for the needy. Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 27 2009,11:28
QUOTE However, it can't be just any sales rep, according to another Supreme Court case -- in-state representatives must be "significantly associated with the taxpayer's ability to establish and maintain a market in the state" It appears that before the age of computing, the logistics of taxing out-of-state retailers prohibited it. After a bit of Googling, it looks like that Quill case they mentioned was the state of N. Dakota trying to argue that floppy disks constitute a "physical presence." The state Supreme Court actually fucking agreed. The federal Supreme Court disagreed w\ the state. The argument of the tax proponents is that since modern computers can easily handle all the bookkeeping bullshit, then the tax should be instituted ... because it's a new tax, I guess. Maybe if the states weren't run by lazy, corrupt, incompetent bureaucrats, they'd've more cash left over & wouldn't need to chisel extra from the general populous. Honestly, this is sort of shit that would count as racketeering if anyone else was trying it. But since we elected them, I suppose it's all good. Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 27 2009,20:27
QUOTE in-state representatives must be "significantly associated with the taxpayer's ability to establish and maintain a market in the state" Sounds to me like this new tax law is unconstitutional according to established precedents, then. There's nothing significant about Amazon's need to have associates physically located in North Carolina in order to connect with customers in North Carolina. Even if associate traffic is a major factor in Amazon connecting with customers, the physical location of those associates has nothing to do with the physical location of the customers. Posted by GORDON on Jun. 27 2009,21:23
I have X amount of dollars I spend each month on frivolous items on amazon. X is a constant. If I have to pay 6%ish tax on the items I purchase, I am going to have to buy fewer items to account for that money. Instead of purchasing several items on the open market, I am buying fewer items, but the government gets the same amount of money. I wonder who I will be putting out of work. It makes no damned sense at all. Dare I say the stage is being set for the complete dismantling of free capitalism in this country? But I wouldn't want to sound crazy. It isn't like the federal government has taken over any huge car companies or banks or mortgage houses and is working on getting control of energy generation markets, or anything. Obama wouldn't want to meddle. Posted by Vince on Jun. 28 2009,08:45
Not to worry. In two years we'll be paying for everything with rabbit pelts.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 28 2009,09:14
(Vince @ Jun. 28 2009,11:45) QUOTE Not to worry. In two years we'll be paying for everything with rabbit pelts. I'm rich! Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2009,13:02
< Rhode Island. >
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 30 2009,13:28
QUOTE “If all of the programs pull out of Rhode Island, doesn’t that defeat the purpose of including this tax in the budget?” Too bad lawmakers aren't this smart. As it stands all they're doing is reducing the income to their state. Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2009,13:45
Just like in North Carolina.Maybe they'll pass a new law that if you do what Amazon is doing, restructuring to avoid taxes, they will be declared terrorist organizations and be "legally" seized by government... though I know how far fetched the idea is of the federal government taking over private companies. Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2009,16:43
QUOTE “I am very concerned about the lack of taxes collected on all remote sales,” Rep. Steven M. Costantino, chair of the House Finance Committee, told Providence Business News earlier this year, referring to purchases made outside of brick-and-mortar stores. Fuck you. Burn in hell, you commie bastard. Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2009,16:53
"I am very concerned." Fuck you. Just fuck you.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 09 2010,17:19
I guess amazon isn't fighting this one.I just made an order on amazon, and 3 items were from their resellers, not directly from amazon. Those 3 items had sales tax applied, and none of the 3 were based in Ohio, nor do I think they have a presence (2 or the 3 were marketplace sellers... definitely no presence in Ohio). The amazon-direct items had no sales tax applied for an Ohio order. Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 09 2010,20:52
I think that's a different thing, isn't it? I think the original problem was about affiliates: basically the state of New York saying that if someone in New York linked to the item then that person represented a "presence" of Amazon in New York and Amazon direct orders to New York would thus all have to be taxed.I wonder how the dust settled on this one. I'll have to do some digging tomorrow. Posted by GORDON on Mar. 09 2010,20:57
I don't know. I bought from 2 resellers: one small place in TN, and one small place in IN. Neither were in Ohio, yet I got charged tax from both. 3rd thing I bought that was taxed was from Hasbro... I've never heard of any Hasbro plants in Ohio but I could be wrong.The 3 things I bought directly from Amazon had no tax at all, as usual. I've never been charged tax from an amazon marketplace reseller before, and I've probably purchased from resellers 100 times. Posted by unkbill on Mar. 10 2010,05:37
Doesn't Hasbro make etch a sketch. They were made in Ohio.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 20 2010,14:31
Hey NC peeps: your state government is trying to get you.Amazon is fighting it, for now. < http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002870-38.html > Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 20 2010,15:33
(GORDON @ Apr. 20 2010,17:31) QUOTE Hey NC peeps: your state government is trying to get you. Amazon is fighting it, for now. < http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20002870-38.html > They already make us pay a use tax. Fuck NC. Posted by GORDON on Apr. 20 2010,15:50
QUOTE Amazon.com filed a lawsuit on Monday to fend off a sweeping demand from North Carolina's tax collectors: detailed records including names and addresses of customers and information about exactly what they purchased. The lawsuit says the demand violates the privacy and First Amendment rights of Amazon's customers. North Carolina's Department of Revenue had ordered the online retailer to provide full details on nearly 50 million purchases made by state residents between 2003 and 2010. With their hands in your pockets they could at least play a little pool while they were in there. But no. Posted by GORDON on Feb. 11 2011,10:55
Amazon pulling out of Texas over tax dispute.< http://www.dallasnews.com/busines....ute.ece > Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 11 2011,11:10
QUOTE “Amazon.com was asked to play by the same rules and has responded by eliminating hundreds of Texas jobs,” said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Alliance for Main Street Fairness in Washington, D.C. “Amazon could have chosen to collect the sales tax as Texas retailers do, but instead they opted to protect their special sales tax loophole to the detriment of hardworking families.” Yeah, because Amazon's got a press that churns out dollar bills so they have an infinite supply of cash. Go fuck yourself, Danny. Stop bitching at retailers for using the insane tax laws at their disposal. Start bitching at your legislators in D.C. and state gov'ts in general for being corrupt beyond description such that they piss away billions of dollars in spending every fiscal year. Go bitch at your legislators for thinking that the same tax logic applied to brick-and-mortar physical locations fifty years ago can in some way be twisted so as to extract the maximum extortion (oops ... taxes) possible from modern, online retailers. Posted by GORDON on Feb. 11 2011,11:11
TPR, has amazon charged you sales tax in the past?
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 11 2011,16:33
I just checked, and no, no sales tax on my orders in the past six months through Amazon. Probably not before then, either.Under Texas law, if Amazon doesn't own the fulfillment center, then they don't have to collect tax. The law is that they have to collect tax if they have a "presence" in the state. Contracting with someone for a service does not count as a "presence". This is even weaker than when New York was claiming that their affiliate program represented a presence in their state for taxing purposes. The state of Texas should first rewrite the law if they want to try to collect those taxes. What they are doing here is just plain strong-arming a business; bureaucratic blackmail if you will. Posted by GORDON on Apr. 12 2011,16:49
They're trying again, except this time a federal law rewriting the mail-order exemption?< http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20052999-281.html > Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2011,17:47
Really was just a matter of time before the law was redone so as to nullify the loophole.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 28 2011,17:54
SC voted against giving amazon a tax break, so amazon canceled a $52M fulfillment center they were opening in SC. Suckas.< http://www.thestate.com/2011....te.html > Here's what's weird: QUOTE Most Midlands lawmakers supported the exemption, but opposition fanned by a coalition of small merchants, national retailers and Tea Party activists proved insurmountable, even as Misener came to lobby lawmakers Wednesday in a last-ditch bid to save the proposal. Read more: < http://www.thestate.com/2011....rwSpE9m > Since when is the Tea Party pushing for more taxation? Another journalist with a mission? Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 29 2011,10:10
I'm sure the 1200 or so people that might have had jobs will be very understanding.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2011,11:26
California implemented Amazon tax,Amazon immediately severed relations with 25k California affiliates. < http://www.ocregister.com/article....ia.html > Posted by Leisher on Jun. 30 2011,12:35
Eventually every state will pass it and Amazon will do all of its business from overseas, ala poker sites.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 30 2011,13:13
So, basically, California has decided they don't want to be part of the modern economy. Good choice! They don't really need to have business coming into their state anyway, they've got plenty of money already.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2011,14:02
It's really much better when people can buy fewer goods and pay more tax at local brick and mortar stores.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2011,16:06
(Leisher @ Jun. 30 2011,14:35) QUOTE Eventually every state will pass it and Amazon will do all of its business from overseas, ala poker sites. I haven't seen it picking up at a high enough pace to agree with that. It's entirely possible some of these insane state laws could be reversed. Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2011,16:07
(GORDON @ Jun. 30 2011,16:02) QUOTE It's really much better when people can buy fewer goods and pay more tax at local brick and mortar stores. Fairness = everyone is cut down to the level of the most retarded dude playing the game. Technically true. Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 30 2011,16:29
QUOTE The state Board of Equalization says the tax will raise $200 million a year... That's the really stupid part here. If that was their honest assessment, they should be immediately euthanized. That level of gross incompetence is an insult to humanity. They had to know that Amazon - and everyone else of any size to matter - would immediately cancel the program. And it won't even hurt Amazon's bottom line. I'm sure any lost sales (of which there will be very few) will be made up for by not having to pay the associates. There is no upside here. None. The only possible reason they did this - besides stupidity - is because they didn't like the precedent being set and had to assert their power because someone had some freedom they didn't approve of. Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2011,17:26
Board of Equalization? That shit just sounds like shades of 1984.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 02 2015,07:51
So amazon just started charging sales tax iin Ohio on June 1.< http://www.clevescene.com/scene-a....in-ohio > They started charging tax so Ohio would give them massive tax credits on some new data centers near Columbus. So today I started checking newegg for stuff before I shop on amazon. Newegg has started having stuff aside from computer parts, and usually with free shipping and never sales tax in ohio. Fuck Columbus. Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 02 2015,08:20
Yeah, we got that last year. Some sellers on Amazon can avoid it. It kinda sucks, but I don't think it's stopped us shopping there at all. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 02 2015,08:37
NewEgg's Shell Shocker deals and TigerDirect's Daily Slasher deals have almost completely supplanted Amazon for my electronics needs. Almost forked over $150 for a 480GB SSD yesterday. Will think about that more seriously when my 240's 90% full.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 02 2015,09:29
I read somewhere that Amazon cuts into profits of the big search engine companies by a huge amount. More products are searched for (even the initial generic search) on Amazon's website than all other search engines combined or something like that. The article pointed out that such advertising in search engines are their bread and butter.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 02 2015,09:46
QUOTE I read somewhere that Amazon cuts into profits of the big search engine companies by a huge amount. You mean Google? |