PDA

View Full Version : Calif tax hikes chase yet another major company out of the state


Little-Acorn
06-30-2011, 12:56 PM
How many layoffs in California will result from these companies losing Amazon's business? How much income tax lost?

How long will California's liberal fanatics go on thinking that enacting more taxes, results in more tax revenue?

-------------------------------------

http://www.foxbusiness.com/2011/06/30/amazon-drops-10000-california-partners-report/

Amazon Drops 10,000 California Partners: Report

by Sara Sjolin
Published June 30, 2011

NEW YORK -- Amazon.com Inc. plans to cut ties with 10,000 California marketing affiliates to avoid collecting a new state tax, according to a report released late Wednesday. The Los Angeles Times said that the tax would force Amazon to collect California state sales tax on purchases made through the affiliates, as part of Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to close a budget gap in 2011-2012.

The affiliates use Amazon to sell their products and are paid either a percentage of the sales or get a commission from Amazon after each sale. Other states have required online retailers to collect sales taxes if they have online affiliates in the state, and Amazon has responded by dropping affiliates in those states.

"This legislation is counterproductive and will not cause our retail business to collect sales tax for the state," said Paul Misener, Amazon's global-policy vice president, in a statement according to the Wall Street Journal.
fj1200
07-01-2011, 10:45 PM
I'm actually with CA on this one. I think online firms should be collecting the sales tax for individual states. Why should online have the tax advantage over brick and mortar?
LuvRPgrl
07-02-2011, 02:52 PM
I'm actually with CA on this one. I think online firms should be collecting the sales tax for individual states. Why should online have the tax advantage over brick and mortar?

A consumer in Ca purchases from a NY company online. Which state does the sale transaction occur in? If it is shipped, then every state that provides a road for the truck to travel on, now has grounds to tax the item.
darin
07-03-2011, 05:00 PM
I'm actually with CA on this one. I think online firms should be collecting the sales tax for individual states. Why should online have the tax advantage over brick and mortar?

Maybe brick and mortar need to lower their prices? :)
fj1200
07-04-2011, 05:17 AM
A consumer in Ca purchases from a NY company online. Which state does the sale transaction occur in? If it is shipped, then every state that provides a road for the truck to travel on, now has grounds to tax the item.

No, a "use tax" is normally required by the state of the purchaser. They are being aided in the evasion of paying taxes.


Maybe brick and mortar need to lower their prices? :)

So they should take a 4-7% hit on their margins because online retailers get a government granted break? I'm all for lowering taxes but the playing field should be level.
darin
07-04-2011, 08:56 AM
So they should take a 4-7% hit on their margins because online retailers get a government granted break? I'm all for lowering taxes but the playing field should be level.


Yeah. Maybe. Adapt or die. :(
LuvRPgrl
07-04-2011, 01:33 PM
No, a "use tax" is normally required by the state of the purchaser. They are being aided in the evasion of paying taxes..
If they can legally skate it, Im all for it,




NoSo they should take a 4-7% hit on their margins because online retailers get a government granted break? I'm all for lowering taxes but the playing field should be level.
Dmp is right, free market and all
fj1200
07-04-2011, 01:38 PM
Dmp is right, free market and all

That's not the free market.
LuvRPgrl
07-04-2011, 01:42 PM
That's not the free market.

What isn't? Being able to skate from paying taxes?
fj1200
07-04-2011, 03:14 PM
What isn't? Being able to skate from paying taxes?

A government sanctioned advantage to one type of business over another based solely on location.
LuvRPgrl
07-04-2011, 05:29 PM
A government sanctioned advantage to one type of business over another based solely on location.

Its the job of companies to find an advantage over its competition and pass the savings on to the consumer.
They have figured a way to avoid taxes and I'm all for them continuing if I can save money. IF the brick and mortars cant figure out how to compete, then maybe some of them need to fold.

Many businesses have eaten bird doo doo since the advent of the PC and the internet,, its progress.

As long as its legal, and the consumers get a better deal, I'm all for it. bottom line
fj1200
07-05-2011, 07:56 AM
Its the job of companies to find an advantage over its competition and pass the savings on to the consumer.
They have figured a way to avoid taxes and I'm all for them continuing if I can save money. IF the brick and mortars cant figure out how to compete, then maybe some of them need to fold.

You're OK with a 4-7% haircut vs. online competitors before they even open the doors?


Many businesses have eaten bird doo doo since the advent of the PC and the internet,, its progress.

Not the point. Unfair advantage is not progress.


As long as its legal, and the consumers get a better deal, I'm all for it. bottom line

So you're all for government intervention by creating different rules for different businesses. Got it.