Posted by rub on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 02:43pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Chevron has its own gas stations, actually. Chevron stations. ARCO is, I think, the only big gas station chain that "buys its gas" from another supplier (BP) before selling to customers.

Actually not quite. Arco is a subsidiary of BP.

7-11 and Circle K get their gas from other suppliers, as do all the supermarkets and club-stores (costco, sams) now carrying gas

Posted by voltaic on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 11:47am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Shit that's right, I meant 7-11 and Citgo. Didn't know about the supermarkets (though it makes sense). Meh, oh well.

Posted by Caliber on Tuesday May 4, 2010 @ 07:03pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

To be perfectly honest, I think the only logically truthful argument that can be made for Amazon (or other Internet entity) is that "We don't want to pay taxes." It's perfectly reasonable, from all other viewpoints, that the company (or consumer in the case of sales tax) should pay the same as is required of a brick and mortar joint.

To answer your question, I do feel that for all taxes save sales tax, the company should pay standard business-related taxes to the state it currently holds license in. In addition, any federal tariffs required for interstate commerce should also be paid. It's only fair, IMHO.

Sales tax is trickier. I do not have a solution...

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 01:38pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

To be perfectly honest, I think the only logically truthful argument that can be made for Amazon (or other Internet entity) is that "We don't want to pay taxes." It's perfectly reasonable, from all other viewpoints, that the company (or consumer in the case of sales tax) should pay the same as is required of a brick and mortar joint.

Lets say you sell D&D story books from a web page. You live in NV and you sell them online or even in a magazine. I live in Fl and I buy one. Who's tax do I pay? Or do you pay it? Florida? Miami (which is higher then Jacksonville), Reno? Should you, the business person have to know what the tax is for everywhere? If I lived in NV and purchased from you, then I would pay the same tax and coming to a store any buying it.

No. At the end of the year, you file your taxes and you show a sales of X, of those X, Y was from NV, Those sales are taxes according to NV tax laws. That's where your business is, that's where your license is. Why should you get a license in all 50 states? Why should you file taxes in all 50 states?

To answer your question, I do feel that for all taxes save sales tax, the company should pay standard business-related taxes to the state it currently holds license in. In addition, any federal tariffs required for interstate commerce should also be paid. It's only fair, IMHO.

Sales tax is trickier. I do not have a solution...

But this whole thing is ABOUT sales tax, that's it.

Posted by voltaic on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 12:01pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Lets say you sell D&D story books from a web page. You live in NV and you sell them online or even in a magazine. I live in Fl and I buy one. Who's tax do I pay? Or do you pay it? Florida? Miami (which is higher then Jacksonville), Reno? Should you, the business person have to know what the tax is for everywhere? If I lived in NV and purchased from you, then I would pay the same tax and coming to a store any buying it.

Of if you lived in FL, flew to NV to visit a friend, and then bought the book while you were there. I used to joke that when I drive to visit Caliber and family, I am supporting his job by buying gas in Carson City. The residency of the buyer is not the issue.

No. At the end of the year, you file your taxes and you show a sales of X, of those X, Y was from NV, Those sales are taxes according to NV tax laws. That's where your business is, that's where your license is. Why should you get a license in all 50 states? Why should you file taxes in all 50 states?

Just asserting yes yes yes isn't a discussion; I want a reason. Should a NV business with a NV location pay NV tax on sales made to customers in FL?

Sales tax is trickier. I do not have a solution...

But this whole thing is ABOUT sales tax, that's it.

Yes I know. That's why we're having a discussion. I'm simply not convinced either way yet.

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 13, 2010 @ 06:17am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Lets say you sell D&D story books from a web page. You live in NV and you sell them online or even in a magazine. I live in Fl and I buy one. Who's tax do I pay? Or do you pay it? Florida? Miami (which is higher then Jacksonville), Reno? Should you, the business person have to know what the tax is for everywhere? If I lived in NV and purchased from you, then I would pay the same tax and coming to a store any buying it.

Of if you lived in FL, flew to NV to visit a friend, and then bought the book while you were there. I used to joke that when I drive to visit Caliber and family, I am supporting his job by buying gas in Carson City. The residency of the buyer is not the issue.

but that's exactly the issue. NC is asking for NC sales tax.

No. At the end of the year, you file your taxes and you show a sales of X, of those X, Y was from NV, Those sales are taxes according to NV tax laws. That's where your business is, that's where your license is. Why should you get a license in all 50 states? Why should you file taxes in all 50 states?

Just asserting yes yes yes isn't a discussion; I want a reason. Should a NV business with a NV location pay NV tax on sales made to customers in FL?

If they Fly to NV then yes, the sale is local.. if they are doing it over the internet, then no. But that should apply to all states, not to NV only. Otherwise, i would imagine that everyone would move their businesses to a tax free states and do inet sales from there.

Posted by voltaic on Sunday May 16, 2010 @ 11:16am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Of if you lived in FL, flew to NV to visit a friend, and then bought the book while you were there. I used to joke that when I drive to visit Caliber and family, I am supporting his job by buying gas in Carson City. The residency of the buyer is not the issue.

but that's exactly the issue. NC is asking for NC sales tax.

And the buyer is in NC at the time. This is the thing I think we disagree on most: you assert that the business's location of sale is what matters and I am not yet convinced that this is more important of a determining factor than the buyer's location of sale. Am I at least right in boiling it down?

Just asserting yes yes yes isn't a discussion; I want a reason. Should a NV business with a NV location pay NV tax on sales made to customers in FL?

If they Fly to NV then yes, the sale is local.. if they are doing it over the internet, then no. But that should apply to all states, not to NV only. Otherwise, i would imagine that everyone would move their businesses to a tax free states and do inet sales from there.

If I'm running a business I will license it in the state with the most favorable laws, build offices in the state with the best office-related policies, and host my website with the ISP (probably in another state) with the best services for what I need. States might have incentives to lower taxes for once (haw haw) to attract business back; in fact there is a bit of study going on right now concerning businesses leaving CA. No, not because of the sales tax, but because of the business income tax. There are so many kinds of taxes that a business has to consider, that just the ability to not charge the customer 7% isn't really a big deal.

Posted by Stealth on Monday May 17, 2010 @ 04:13am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Of if you lived in FL, flew to NV to visit a friend, and then bought the book while you were there. I used to joke that when I drive to visit Caliber and family, I am supporting his job by buying gas in Carson City. The residency of the buyer is not the issue.

but that's exactly the issue. NC is asking for NC sales tax.

And the buyer is in NC at the time. This is the thing I think we disagree on most: you assert that the business's location of sale is what matters and I am not yet convinced that this is more important of a determining factor than the buyer's location of sale. Am I at least right in boiling it down?

Right. That is correct. But with the term 'business' you have to remember, we're not talking about just the HQ, but if the company has any building in that state.

Just asserting yes yes yes isn't a discussion; I want a reason. Should a NV business with a NV location pay NV tax on sales made to customers in FL?

If they Fly to NV then yes, the sale is local.. if they are doing it over the internet, then no. But that should apply to all states, not to NV only. Otherwise, i would imagine that everyone would move their businesses to a tax free states and do inet sales from there.

If I'm running a business I will license it in the state with the most favorable laws, build offices in the state with the best office-related policies, and host my website with the ISP (probably in another state) with the best services for what I need. States might have incentives to lower taxes for once (haw haw) to attract business back; in fact there is a bit of study going on right now concerning businesses leaving CA. No, not because of the sales tax, but because of the business income tax. There are so many kinds of taxes that a business has to consider, that just the ability to not charge the customer 7% isn't really a big deal.

Does that kind of though process, doing things in different states to try and squeeze the most of the system, does that make more sense then just making the laws the same across the playing field? It seems that laws written, to allow your company to do what you described only end up making things worse and more confusing. Yes, the company might make 3%, but now you have to worry about the laws of 3 or 4 states (possibly) instead of just the one you want to do business in.

You think states should be lowering taxes right now? Really? How would that work out for most of them, generating less income then before when there already is a shortfall and budget problems?

Posted by voltaic on Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 08:12am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Right. That is correct. But with the term 'business' you have to remember, we're not talking about just the HQ, but if the company has any building in that state.

Understood. I just wanted to make sure I am sure about which point we disagree on: is the official point of sale at the buyer's location or the seller's location.

Now I can just say: your wrong. ;)

Does that kind of though process, doing things in different states to try and squeeze the most of the system, does that make more sense then just making the laws the same across the playing field? It seems that laws written, to allow your company to do what you described only end up making things worse and more confusing. Yes, the company might make 3%, but now you have to worry about the laws of 3 or 4 states (possibly) instead of just the one you want to do business in.

Of course it makes sense. States can't all have homogeneous laws. The cultures, needs, resources, and weaknesses of each state are different. If a business had to be concerned about every single law in every single state, sure that would be a bunch of crap. However, many companies are already in many/most states and things seem to hum along just fine. Taco Bell charges me CA/Sacramento sales tax here and NV/LV sales tax in Vegas.

You think states should be lowering taxes right now? Really? How would that work out for most of them, generating less income then before when there already is a shortfall and budget problems?

No, not really. I don't know where you got this from. I made a huge post not long ago that cutting spending was the only solution to current budget issues. You must remember since you replied to it. :)

Posted by Stealth on Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 08:25am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Right. That is correct. But with the term 'business' you have to remember, we're not talking about just the HQ, but if the company has any building in that state.

Understood. I just wanted to make sure I am sure about which point we disagree on: is the official point of sale at the buyer's location or the seller's location.

Now I can just say: your wrong. ;)

Noted. Score: Volt - pie Stealth - 0


You think states should be lowering taxes right now? Really? How would that work out for most of them, generating less income then before when there already is a shortfall and budget problems?

No, not really. I don't know where you got this from. I made a huge post not long ago that cutting spending was the only solution to current budget issues. You must remember since you replied to it. :)

"States might have incentives to lower taxes for once (haw haw) to attract business back"

That's where I got it from. Haw haw being that you might think it's a good idea. I remember the other thread..

Posted by voltaic on Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 08:35am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

You think states should be lowering taxes right now? Really? How would that work out for most of them, generating less income then before when there already is a shortfall and budget problems?

No, not really. I don't know where you got this from. I made a huge post not long ago that cutting spending was the only solution to current budget issues. You must remember since you replied to it. :)

"States might have incentives to lower taxes for once (haw haw) to attract business back"

That's where I got it from. Haw haw being that you might think it's a good idea. I remember the other thread..

I get lost between threads and topics. Anyway, the "haw haw" was me saying "yeah right, like a state is going to lower taxes".

Posted by Krux on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 08:56pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Just asserting yes yes yes isn't a discussion; I want a reason. Should a NV business with a NV location pay NV tax on sales made to customers in FL?

Yes.

Posted by Krux on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 09:07pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

No. At the end of the year, you file your taxes and you show a sales of X, of those X, Y was from NV, Those sales are taxes according to NV tax laws. That's where your business is, that's where your license is. Why should you get a license in all 50 states? Why should you file taxes in all 50 states?

From what I understand that if a company, such as Amazon, has warehouses in multiple states, they have to charge sales tax for sales in each of those states, but only for sales to people in those states.

Posted by voltaic on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 12:02pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

No. At the end of the year, you file your taxes and you show a sales of X, of those X, Y was from NV, Those sales are taxes according to NV tax laws. That's where your business is, that's where your license is. Why should you get a license in all 50 states? Why should you file taxes in all 50 states?

From what I understand that if a company, such as Amazon, has warehouses in multiple states, they have to charge sales tax for sales in each of those states, but only for sales to people in those states.

I believe there is also a strong Constitutional argument that when a business engages in regular commerce across state lines, they should either have to get a license in every state or get some kind of federal interstate commerce business license. I'm not saying I agree, but it doesn't seem unreasonable for such a thing to be suggested.

Posted by Krux on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 09:08pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

No. At the end of the year, you file your taxes and you show a sales of X, of those X, Y was from NV, Those sales are taxes according to NV tax laws. That's where your business is, that's where your license is. Why should you get a license in all 50 states? Why should you file taxes in all 50 states?

From what I understand that if a company, such as Amazon, has warehouses in multiple states, they have to charge sales tax for sales in each of those states, but only for sales to people in those states.

I believe there is also a strong Constitutional argument that when a business engages in regular commerce across state lines, they should either have to get a license in every state or get some kind of federal interstate commerce business license. I'm not saying I agree, but it doesn't seem unreasonable for such a thing to be suggested.

I don't think that should be the case. It seems a logistical nightmare. Getting a business license in the state you are in is fine. If you have a business that has a presence in multiple states, having multiple business licenses for each state is fine. I mean I assume how the translations work is that for each sale that state sales tax is collected on, they have to pay that to the state either monthly or at least when you file your taxes for the business. I don't see how workable it would be if you ended up having to file taxes to potentially 50 different states. And then what about sales to people who are over seas. If we're trying to collect more money from sales, If anything I would think, that businesses just charge a sales tax for the state they are local in for all translations, and be done with it. That would probably complicate things, if say you were amazon and had multiple state business licenses, since you would have to then figure out which state you are going to put the sales under. It may be for that very reason they just don't required a state sales tax for sales across state lines.

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @ 08:34am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I believe there is also a strong Constitutional argument that when a business engages in regular commerce across state lines, they should either have to get a license in every state or get some kind of federal interstate commerce business license. I'm not saying I agree, but it doesn't seem unreasonable for such a thing to be suggested.

I don't think that should be the case. It seems a logistical nightmare. Getting a business license in the state you are in is fine. If you have a business that has a presence in multiple states, having multiple business licenses for each state is fine. I mean I assume how the translations work is that for each sale that state sales tax is collected on, they have to pay that to the state either monthly or at least when you file your taxes for the business. I don't see how workable it would be if you ended up having to file taxes to potentially 50 different states. And then what about sales to people who are over seas. If we're trying to collect more money from sales, If anything I would think, that businesses just charge a sales tax for the state they are local in for all translations, and be done with it. That would probably complicate things, if say you were amazon and had multiple state business licenses, since you would have to then figure out which state you are going to put the sales under. It may be for that very reason they just don't required a state sales tax for sales across state lines.

Business primarily file taxes quarterly, both state and federal. It isn't like our personal taxes on a once-per-year basis. Just FYI.

Anyway, record keeping across state lines isn't as difficult as it used to be. It's trivial to keep up with sales taxes and track records of who bought what and where. Overseas certainly is a different issue especially since there is a question of jurisdiction. But for a customer in FL using a computer in FL and an internet connection in FL to buy an item to be shipped to FL, I'm not convinced he shouldn't pay FL sales tax just because the company he bought from is in another state.

When I traveled to Hawaii and bought some cookies from a store to be shipped to family in Nevada, I paid Hawaii sales taxes on them. What is the substantive difference if I performed the exact same transaction except where I was sitting in CA making the purchase over the internet?

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 13, 2010 @ 07:10am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I believe there is also a strong Constitutional argument that when a business engages in regular commerce across state lines, they should either have to get a license in every state or get some kind of federal interstate commerce business license. I'm not saying I agree, but it doesn't seem unreasonable for such a thing to be suggested.

I don't think that should be the case. It seems a logistical nightmare. Getting a business license in the state you are in is fine. If you have a business that has a presence in multiple states, having multiple business licenses for each state is fine. I mean I assume how the translations work is that for each sale that state sales tax is collected on, they have to pay that to the state either monthly or at least when you file your taxes for the business. I don't see how workable it would be if you ended up having to file taxes to potentially 50 different states. And then what about sales to people who are over seas. If we're trying to collect more money from sales, If anything I would think, that businesses just charge a sales tax for the state they are local in for all translations, and be done with it. That would probably complicate things, if say you were amazon and had multiple state business licenses, since you would have to then figure out which state you are going to put the sales under. It may be for that very reason they just don't required a state sales tax for sales across state lines.

Business primarily file taxes quarterly, both state and federal. It isn't like our personal taxes on a once-per-year basis. Just FYI.

Anyway, record keeping across state lines isn't as difficult as it used to be. It's trivial to keep up with sales taxes and track records of who bought what and where. Overseas certainly is a different issue especially since there is a question of jurisdiction. But for a customer in FL using a computer in FL and an internet connection in FL to buy an item to be shipped to FL, I'm not convinced he shouldn't pay FL sales tax just because the company he bought from is in another state.

When I traveled to Hawaii and bought some cookies from a store to be shipped to family in Nevada, I paid Hawaii sales taxes on them. What is the substantive difference if I performed the exact same transaction except where I was sitting in CA making the purchase over the internet?

These two examples confuse me. From the way I read your first one (the FL example) I get that you are implying that the customer should pay taxes to FL for something purchased somewhere else. Correct? So you would have to keep track of what you bought and then pay FL at the end of the year.

In the second example, you ask why shouldn't HI get taxes from the sale, since the company is in HI even if you purchased them at home in CA; where as you when you purchased them in HI, the state did get taxes.

Who should get the taxes for what? Should the company always pay the sales tax for every purchase, should the company pay taxes for only the purchases made from customers in the state or should the consumer always pay the tax no matter where the store is (and move the requirement to pay the tax from the business to the consumer; as in businesses would no longer pay sales tax).

What does the tax solve/provide? Income to the state. For what? Services for the business (fire/police/land improvements?). So why should FL get a cut of money of a purchase that a consumer made that didn't cost the state anything (if the purchase is over the internet)?

If we had to choice, I would be more for having a company pay for every sale, regardless of source. But then, like with Amazon or NewEgg.. which state do you pay the tax in? the HQ state (and the states with the warehouses loose out)? The states it item came from (the warehouse but not where the sale was made, the HQ)? If you did it that way, I'm willing to bet most shops would move to OR or Delware and set up shop there.

With the current system., anywhere there is a physical presence, that has to be supported by a city/state, those sales pay tax. Over the internet, from a place that doesn't have a physical presence for the company, there is no cost to any one state, so why should a state make money off of it.

Posted by voltaic on Sunday May 16, 2010 @ 11:26am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Who should get the taxes for what? Should the company always pay the sales tax for every purchase, should the company pay taxes for only the purchases made from customers in the state or should the consumer always pay the tax no matter where the store is (and move the requirement to pay the tax from the business to the consumer; as in businesses would no longer pay sales tax).

If this thing happens I expect businesses would be responsible to collect sales taxes from each buyer appropriately and then pass it on to the appropriate state governments. People aren't likely to self-report sales taxes.

What does the tax solve/provide? Income to the state. For what? Services for the business (fire/police/land improvements?). So why should FL get a cut of money of a purchase that a consumer made that didn't cost the state anything (if the purchase is over the internet)?

Whoa whoa, slow down here. California doesn't provide anything for me to buy something online from a store in Hawaii? Fire and police protection are nullified when I'm on the internet? My (hypothetical) kids aren't going to the public school when I buy from Amazon?

If we had to choice, I would be more for having a company pay for every sale, regardless of source. But then, like with Amazon or NewEgg.. which state do you pay the tax in? the HQ state (and the states with the warehouses loose out)? The states it item came from (the warehouse but not where the sale was made, the HQ)? If you did it that way, I'm willing to bet most shops would move to OR or Delware and set up shop there.

The state of the buyer. Your hypothetical is close to how the system is now and I don't see businesses flocking to Delaware.

With the current system., anywhere there is a physical presence, that has to be supported by a city/state, those sales pay tax. Over the internet, from a place that doesn't have a physical presence for the company, there is no cost to any one state, so why should a state make money off of it.

I disagree that there is no cost. Shrug.

Posted by Stealth on Monday May 17, 2010 @ 04:07am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Who should get the taxes for what? Should the company always pay the sales tax for every purchase, should the company pay taxes for only the purchases made from customers in the state or should the consumer always pay the tax no matter where the store is (and move the requirement to pay the tax from the business to the consumer; as in businesses would no longer pay sales tax).

If this thing happens I expect businesses would be responsible to collect sales taxes from each buyer appropriately and then pass it on to the appropriate state governments. People aren't likely to self-report sales taxes.

And that would be a suck for businesses and consumers. In addition, cities/counties have their own tax rate. So now If I buy from Amazon, am I paying the 10 percent King County tax or the 8 percent Clark County tax? it's opening up a bigger can of worms.

What does the tax solve/provide? Income to the state. For what? Services for the business (fire/police/land improvements?). So why should FL get a cut of money of a purchase that a consumer made that didn't cost the state anything (if the purchase is over the internet)?

Whoa whoa, slow down here. California doesn't provide anything for me to buy something online from a store in Hawaii? Fire and police protection are nullified when I'm on the internet? My (hypothetical) kids aren't going to the public school when I buy from Amazon?

No, But you still pay CA taxes on things you do buy from there; groceries, gas, power, food, property taxes,etc. I guess if this was a big deal where EVERYTHING was bought over the internet then maybe it would be something looking at again, but right now it's just trying to squeeze for every last dime. Lets say I spend 5K a year at Amazon.. that 500 in taxes. I don't think the state would care. And, no, I don't think every persons spends that much online.. i think it's much less.

If we had to choice, I would be more for having a company pay for every sale, regardless of source. But then, like with Amazon or NewEgg.. which state do you pay the tax in? the HQ state (and the states with the warehouses loose out)? The states it item came from (the warehouse but not where the sale was made, the HQ)? If you did it that way, I'm willing to bet most shops would move to OR or Delware and set up shop there.

The state of the buyer. Your hypothetical is close to how the system is now and I don't see businesses flocking to Delaware.

Right now it's physical presence of any building.. Amazon and New Egg can't work out of one state (thus the warehouses around the country). And everyone else.. they either already have a presence in the state and collect/pay the tax (Sears, BestBuy, etc) or are to small to really care.

With the current system., anywhere there is a physical presence, that has to be supported by a city/state, those sales pay tax. Over the internet, from a place that doesn't have a physical presence for the company, there is no cost to any one state, so why should a state make money off of it.

I disagree that there is no cost. Shrug.

You disagree, but provide no example or alternative?

What addition cost does the state of CA incur when you buy something from HI on-line? You already paid for your cable/internet and the tax with that, and so the bits are being paid for, same with the house and power and all that jazz. It doesn't cost them anything. CA hasn't had to pay at all, any more then it already does when you browse the Google or the website for your school.

Posted by voltaic on Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 08:34am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

If this thing happens I expect businesses would be responsible to collect sales taxes from each buyer appropriately and then pass it on to the appropriate state governments. People aren't likely to self-report sales taxes.

And that would be a suck for businesses and consumers. In addition, cities/counties have their own tax rate. So now If I buy from Amazon, am I paying the 10 percent King County tax or the 8 percent Clark County tax? it's opening up a bigger can of worms.

Businesses do it now. How does it suck for consumers exactly since they don't have to do anything?

As I've said, I'm talking about the customer's location at the time of sale. It's no big can of worms. It's 3141 numbers in a database listing sales taxes by county (or county equivalent as the USGS calls it). Businesses do it now. Think McDonalds. What is the big can of worms in them typing in the correct sales tax into their point-of-sale system whenever they open an outlet in a new place?

Whoa whoa, slow down here. California doesn't provide anything for me to buy something online from a store in Hawaii? Fire and police protection are nullified when I'm on the internet? My (hypothetical) kids aren't going to the public school when I buy from Amazon?

No, But you still pay CA taxes on things you do buy from there; groceries, gas, power, food, property taxes,etc. I guess if this was a big deal where EVERYTHING was bought over the internet then maybe it would be something looking at again, but right now it's just trying to squeeze for every last dime. Lets say I spend 5K a year at Amazon.. that 500 in taxes. I don't think the state would care. And, no, I don't think every persons spends that much online.. i think it's much less.

The great thing about Amazon now is that they are publicly traded, so their audited financials are available online. Per their financials, their US-only sales (excluding stuff like fees from their credit cards, etc, so just sales as far as I can get it) was about $12.278B last year. Sales taxes range quite a bit in the US, but let's just be simple for this and say an average of 5% (I'm sure a true weighted average would be higher with more customers in the high CA and NY states for example, but fuck it). 5% of that sales revenue is ~$614M in 2009 alone.

Or let's get creative and say perhaps Amazon sells 10% of their US revenue in CA since we're a bunch of online freaks. That's $1.228B in sales (going back to the original sales figure) and with our average 8.5% sales tax or so, that's potentially $104M in sales tax for only one year from Amazon alone. That's not something a state doesn't care about.

With the current system., anywhere there is a physical presence, that has to be supported by a city/state, those sales pay tax. Over the internet, from a place that doesn't have a physical presence for the company, there is no cost to any one state, so why should a state make money off of it.

I disagree that there is no cost. Shrug.

You disagree, but provide no example or alternative?

I already gave an example. I still receive fire and police protection in CA while I'm online buying from a store in NV. I'm curious what the "cost" is to a state beyond that for a business opening up a physical presence?

What addition cost does the state of CA incur when you buy something from HI on-line? You already paid for your cable/internet and the tax with that, and so the bits are being paid for, same with the house and power and all that jazz. It doesn't cost them anything. CA hasn't had to pay at all, any more then it already does when you browse the Google or the website for your school.

Additional cost? None. Just like it didn't cost Hawaii anything when I travelled there and bought from the Hawaii store.

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday May 5, 2010 @ 09:16am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

To be perfectly honest, I think the only logically truthful argument that can be made for Amazon (or other Internet entity) is that "We don't want to pay taxes." It's perfectly reasonable, from all other viewpoints, that the company (or consumer in the case of sales tax) should pay the same as is required of a brick and mortar joint.

The company doesn't pay sales tax, though. It is borne entirely by the customer. Amazon's incentive to avoid sales tax is so that they can tell customers that they, the customers, don't have to pay it. It's a marketing manuever, really.

To answer your question, I do feel that for all taxes save sales tax, the company should pay standard business-related taxes to the state it currently holds license in. In addition, any federal tariffs required for interstate commerce should also be paid. It's only fair, IMHO.

Now that's an interesting idea: some kind of interstate duties.

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 6, 2010 @ 01:40pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

To be perfectly honest, I think the only logically truthful argument that can be made for Amazon (or other Internet entity) is that "We don't want to pay taxes." It's perfectly reasonable, from all other viewpoints, that the company (or consumer in the case of sales tax) should pay the same as is required of a brick and mortar joint.

The company doesn't pay sales tax, though. It is borne entirely by the customer. Amazon's incentive to avoid sales tax is so that they can tell customers that they, the customers, don't have to pay it. It's a marketing manuever, really.

Companies pay sales tax. Or at least they collect it from the consumer and report it on the sales from the store and pass it on to the states, expect of course for those states that don't have a sales tax. how is it borne by the consumer?

Posted by voltaic on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 12:03pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Companies pay sales tax. Or at least they collect it from the consumer and report it on the sales from the store and pass it on to the states, expect of course for those states that don't have a sales tax. how is it borne by the consumer?

Wait, WHAT? I have to explain to you who pays sales tax? Next time you buy something in the US, look at the receipt my friend. There's a fucking 8 point vig in California alone.

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 13, 2010 @ 06:19am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Companies pay sales tax. Or at least they collect it from the consumer and report it on the sales from the store and pass it on to the states, expect of course for those states that don't have a sales tax. how is it borne by the consumer?

Wait, WHAT? I have to explain to you who pays sales tax? Next time you buy something in the US, look at the receipt my friend. There's a fucking 8 point vig in California alone.

you don't pay the tax directly, you give it to a business and the business pays the sales on the sales the business makes. I don't have to file anything with anyone on any sales that I make. I have to pay, but I pay to the business and it pays the state.

Posted by voltaic on Sunday May 16, 2010 @ 11:18am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Companies pay sales tax. Or at least they collect it from the consumer and report it on the sales from the store and pass it on to the states, expect of course for those states that don't have a sales tax. how is it borne by the consumer?

Wait, WHAT? I have to explain to you who pays sales tax? Next time you buy something in the US, look at the receipt my friend. There's a fucking 8 point vig in California alone.

you don't pay the tax directly, you give it to a business and the business pays the sales on the sales the business makes. I don't have to file anything with anyone on any sales that I make. I have to pay, but I pay to the business and it pays the state.

That is what is meant by "borne by the customer". Yes, the company is a proxy that actually takes in the money, but the burden of the sales taxes is borne by the customer. The customer _pays_ the sales tax, even if they pay it _to_ the business who then passes it on. That's like saying I don't pay my Verizon phone bill; I put money in the bank and the bank pays my bill. That's such retarded linguistic gymnastics that I can barely insult it properly.

Posted by Stealth on Monday May 17, 2010 @ 04:18am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Companies pay sales tax. Or at least they collect it from the consumer and report it on the sales from the store and pass it on to the states, expect of course for those states that don't have a sales tax. how is it borne by the consumer?

Wait, WHAT? I have to explain to you who pays sales tax? Next time you buy something in the US, look at the receipt my friend. There's a fucking 8 point vig in California alone.

you don't pay the tax directly, you give it to a business and the business pays the sales on the sales the business makes. I don't have to file anything with anyone on any sales that I make. I have to pay, but I pay to the business and it pays the state.

That is what is meant by "borne by the customer". Yes, the company is a proxy that actually takes in the money, but the burden of the sales taxes is borne by the customer. The customer _pays_ the sales tax, even if they pay it _to_ the business who then passes it on. That's like saying I don't pay my Verizon phone bill; I put money in the bank and the bank pays my bill. That's such retarded linguistic gymnastics that I can barely insult it properly.

Except your verizon bill is in your name and you are responsible and even if the bank pays or not, it's on your ass. The sales tax, if the company doesn't pay, they are responsible. Example: Get a 'tax exempt status' number.. go buy goods, you won't pay tax on it, but the company has to do the work to show why they aren't passing that on. Not you. That's what I mean when I saw, Not my (consumer) responsibility.

This bit all stemed from you saying Amazon's incentive to avoid sales tax is so that they can tell customers that they, the customers, don't have to pay it. It's a marketing manuever, really and I'm trying to say that it's not a marketing maneuver (I don't know what states Amazon will charge tax in or now and I wouldn't change my house location to avoid sales tax for just those purchases).

Posted by rub on Monday May 17, 2010 @ 11:31am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Except your verizon bill is in your name and you are responsible and even if the bank pays or not, it's on your ass. The sales tax, if the company doesn't pay, they are responsible. Example: Get a 'tax exempt status' number.. go buy goods, you won't pay tax on it, but the company has to do the work to show why they aren't passing that on. Not you. That's what I mean when I saw, Not my (consumer) responsibility.

LOL, here is some old school rub I still do

You can go to walmart and give them a copy of your business license and they will issue you a special card. This card you use at the register and don't pay sales tax. Essentially, you are treated as a reseller of their goods so it is your responsibility to charge sales tax to your customer on the product you bought from walmart. Of course, they don't check shit and you can use it for all your personal purchases. Just be sure to tweak your social security number a bit when filing out the business registration forms with the state. POW... save 8%

Posted by Stealth on Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 05:41am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Why am I not surprised.

Posted by Caliber on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 01:00pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Companies pay sales tax. Or at least they collect it from the consumer and report it on the sales from the store and pass it on to the states, expect of course for those states that don't have a sales tax. how is it borne by the consumer?

Wait, WHAT? I have to explain to you who pays sales tax? Next time you buy something in the US, look at the receipt my friend. There's a fucking 8 point vig in California alone.

Far be it for me to stave discussion intentionally (though I seem to be quite capable on accident), but I think at this point you guys are delving into semantics. You are both correct

The consumer pays the sales tax, but it is the company that collects that tax on the sale and forwards it on to the government. So in this case, the seller is simply a tax collector for the state. I know that a lot of point of sale rules require that the collected money is separated at the register (hence why we don't get a receipt for $10.80, we get one for $10.00 + $0.80). This right here would be my strongest stance for collecting the sales tax at the PoS (regardless of where that register, credit machine, fat chick with a headset is). But that would lead to abuses based on finding a spot with no sales tax, setting up a fat chick with a headset in a closet office with a credit card machine, and then spreading your warehouses and business offices up wherever. The other option is that you pay sales tax based on the location of the buyer at the time of sale. Again, you run into the problem of abuses. Also, if I am TDY in KY, but while sitting in my hotel, I buy something for delivery to my home address, how would the rule apply... blah blah blah

like I said, I don't have a solution

Posted by Stealth on Tuesday May 4, 2010 @ 05:47am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Not trying to be funny or push buttons, just trying to converse. You are glad Amazon gave the finger about paying tax to a state, so I'm curious if you'd feel the same if a traditional "evil company" like an oil company did the same? I guess it does sound trollish, not my intention.

Like Savage said, any company that has a physical presence should pay local taxes. Chevron (the big company) probably sells the gas/oil to the smaller local stores and they pay the sales tax. The big company might not pay sales tax, but then they aren't the final sale.

Chevron has its own gas stations, actually. Chevron stations. ARCO is, I think, the only big gas station chain that "buys its gas" from another supplier (BP) before selling to customers.

But then to the question again: is it physical presence or final sale? What makes a substantive difference between physical presence and virtual presence for taxation purposes? Or I guess more down to the wire: why does physical presence matter? If you conduct business in a state, what is the nature of the argument that you should only support that state if you have a building there? And on a related issue, what about establishing physical presences to explicitly take advantage of things (like that article you had on MS avoiding taxes by setting up a branch in Nevada)?

I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm trying to figure out if there is a clearly defined line which makes sense.

Example - if you are a resaler, you don't pay sales tax on the items that you buy from a distributor to sell. But, you do collect and pay the man for the items that are sold, in that state. If you visit somewhere and buy something, you don't report back to your home state that you paid taxes to another state for some item that you bought. In this case, people in WA pay sale tax at Amazon, because Amazon has a physical office there. People on Idaho don't (as an example) because there is no office there. People in NC don't. But NC want's Amazon to report those sales and make those people pay tax. Why would they pay taxes to one state if purchased somewhere else?

As for Gas, there's other taxes on that, so I don't remember if you have a 'sales' tax on Gas or the other gas taxes on the receipt. But that was an example.

And yes, I remember the MS thing, and I think that's a BS crap move, but it's within the law. In that case, MS is avoid INCOME tax to a state, not a consumer avoiding a sales tax. MS has an 'office' (read as a post box) in NV and has a large number of it's big business sales go through that office, generating income for the company, but not paying taxes since NV doesn't have corporate incoming tax. So, buy having all the purchases go through that post office box, they avoid paying incoming tax in WA, where they actually have the business. So now a state is missing out on generated income from a company that has a physical presence and does business in the state through a crap loophole. They (WA) have to provide MS the same services as other businesses but MS doesn't' give any money back. And it's not exactly a small company.. NC isn't loosing anything that it was owed, they just want more money to make ends meet and Amazon is a big target. Why only amazon and not "Jims book sales" from SC or somewhere else?

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday May 5, 2010 @ 09:23am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Example - if you are a resaler, you don't pay sales tax on the items that you buy from a distributor to sell. But, you do collect and pay the man for the items that are sold, in that state. If you visit somewhere and buy something, you don't report back to your home state that you paid taxes to another state for some item that you bought. In this case, people in WA pay sale tax at Amazon, because Amazon has a physical office there. People on Idaho don't (as an example) because there is no office there. People in NC don't. But NC want's Amazon to report those sales and make those people pay tax. Why would they pay taxes to one state if purchased somewhere else?

Well I guess that's the salient point: did the NC customer buy something from Amazon "somewhere else"? I can see the argument that the NC customer sitting in his NC house on his NC computer originated his purchase in NC. I can also see the argument that the point of sale isn't where the customer is located but is where the seller is located (your POV). Of course adding the multiple steps of the internet (NC customer uses a VA based ISP, pays through CA based Paypal, who clears his credit card through a SD-based card company, who transmits to an Amazon data center in TX to Amazon's closest order fulfillment center in FL but the money goes to corporate treasury at headquarters in WA) doesn't clarify things either. Where did the purchase occur? Mail order at least had clear source and destination points.

Look, I don't know which one I agree with and I'm definitely not all pro-taxes, but I don't think it's such a patently obvious answer either.

As for Gas, there's other taxes on that, so I don't remember if you have a 'sales' tax on Gas or the other gas taxes on the receipt. But that was an example.

Well gas is a special case, there are like a half dozen kinds of taxes imposed on it and gas sellers just incorporate all of that into the pump price.

NC isn't loosing anything that it was owed, they just want more money to make ends meet and Amazon is a big target. Why only amazon and not "Jims book sales" from SC or somewhere else?

You always start with the big fish. Once the courts determine which way it goes, the small fish will get in line.