Print 59 comment(s) - last by Alexvrb.. on Jul 2 at 10:14 PM

  (Source: Stuart Isett/The New York Times )
Amazon says these sales taxes are "unconstitutional and counterproductive"

Amazon has fully committed itself to its effort against the collection of sales taxes, and it continues to prove this dedication over and over as it cuts ties with state after state.

After cutting ties with states like Texas, where Texas State Comptroller Susan Combs charged Amazon $269 million in unpaid sales taxes, and Illinois, where Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) plans to introduce a bill that would force Amazon to collect sales tax called the Main Street Fairness Act, Amazon is now looking to turn its back on California as well after Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that would enforce the collection of online sales tax. 

"We oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive," said Amazon in an e-mail to Californian affiliates. "It is supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside California, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors. As a result, we will terminate contracts with all California residents that are participants in the Amazon Associates Program as of the date (if any) that the California law becomes effective."

Amazon also noted that these sales taxes "spur job and income losses." But Amazon has to do what it feels it should do, and with this bill in place, Amazon won't think twice about cutting ties with its 10,000 California-based sales affiliates.

Amazon is the largest online retailer with more than 90 million registered buyers and $34 billion in annual sales. In recent times, it has encountered increased pressure from certain U.S. states to collect online sales taxes since the retailer's affiliates operate within those states. In addition, some U.S. states see an online sales tax on Amazon purchases as a way of digging themselves out of large state budget deficits. 

But Amazon refuses to back down. Last month, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said the U.S. states' demands were unconstitutional, citing a 1992 Supreme Court decision that excuses Amazon and other remote sellers from having to collect taxes in U.S. states that do not have the company's employees or warehouses operating within its borders. 

As of right now, Amazon collects taxes in Kansas, Kentucky, New York, North Dakota and Washington. In other U.S. states where Amazon does not collect sales taxes, customers are to document and pay tax on out-of-state untaxed sales, but rarely do because they either don't know about this or just don't care.

Brick-and-mortar stores like Best Buy and Wal-Mart retaliated saying that Amazon has an unfair advantage due to its lack of sales tax collection in other states.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: As always...
By Alexstarfire on 7/1/2011 12:14:34 AM , Rating: 2
Watching/reading the argument between you and him was rather interesting. It seems a bit hypocritical of him to say that you're effectively nobody and hence should be ignored. He's a nobody as well and for him to think that his way of thinking/logic is any more valuable than yours is just stupid. Being an expert in an area is one thing, but that wouldn't make what they say any less true or false. People are just more apt to listen to what they have to say since they should have more knowledge on the subject. Trying to prove his point by badmouthing you is exactly what politicians do and is why the US is in such bad shape.

Anyway, it seems to me that based on what he say a use tax is is that it's basically a way to charge sales tax without actually imposing a sales tax. He says that the whole idea behind it is to set out of state companies on the same level as in-state ones. That in itself is almost exactly why it's probably unconstitutional. A proper use tax would tax both in-state AND out-of-state companies the same precisely because it is a use tax, and not based on sales, and wouldn't be discriminatory.

The only difference in the taxes is where the burden is places. Sales tax is on the company/vendor and a use tax is on all the individual consumers. Imposing a tax on every single individual is simply retarded. There is no way you could enforce something like that on every single person. However, if the federal government wanted out-of-state companies to be taxed the same as in-state companies then they would have allowed it.

Hopefully this simple logic is easy to follow.

RE: As always...
By Motoman on 7/1/2011 9:41:08 AM , Rating: 2
You have no logic.

It's not hypocritical for me to point out that he's nobody. I'm not the one making the outlandish, wildly radical claims. Me asserting that the law of the land for the past several decades is *legal* isn't exactly an earth-shaking proclamation. It's downright boring...blindingly obvious, as it were...I might as well be claiming that water is wet. To make such a bland, boring claim requires no special credentials...

...on the other hand, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. For which he has none...going so far as to claim that he is the only person who ever lived in this country in more than 70 years to "see clearly" the issue that he is ranting about. Really? must be special indeed. But he's not...he has no credentials, no facts, just a crackpot theory.

AND HERE'S THE KICKER...THE ULTIMATE PROOF THAT HE IS WRONG: If he was right about use tax being unconstitutional, he'd be the greatest hero of the American people...ever. If he was right, he'd spend the *paltry* amount of money required to file a lawsuit...apparently win it in 5 minutes, according to him, and then he would become wildly popular and wildly rich. He'd make millions on the talk show circuit. Be a best seller with a book he commissioned someone else to write about it. Get all the hot chicks he could ever possibly want. Overnight he'd be more important to the American people than Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Schoolchildren for the rest of eternity would learn his name in history class.

But he's not done any such thing. And never will. Because he knows he's wrong. He knows he'd be laughed out of the courtroom, and have been proven to be a moron in a court of law.

He'll make some claim about how he just doesn't care to do it, blah blah. Right - because he doesn't want to be rich. Doesn't want to be famous. Doesn't want his name to ring through the halls of eternity.

If he, or you, or anyone else wanted to go and do that...and therefore become rich and famous beyond your wildest go on and do that.

If not, STFU and GTFO because your refusal to step up to the altar and accept your fame and fortune is tantamount to an admission of stupidity.

RE: As always...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2011 12:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
You lose. This is the worst reasoning I have ever seen you use. It might work on Pirks or whoever, but it's not floating with me. To claim that someone needs to alter their life and file a motion in court to argue over the Internet is absolutely fallacious and, frankly, insane.

If he was right about use tax being unconstitutional, he'd be the greatest hero of the American people

Ahaha. Most Americans have no idea "use taxes" even exist because nobody has to pay them! Hero to the people!? Motoman you have lost it. Are you even thinking this through? Nobody cares!

If not, STFU and GTFO

I'm sorry, is this 1996 all over again? I think when you need to resort to 'leetspeak' ranting of this immaturity, that pretty much tells us what well your reasoning is springing from. He was just stating his opinion, he wasn't even part of this debate really, where do you get off speaking to him this way?

"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki