I agree. I will move to Texas and join in the secession movement!

Price is not Amazon’s strongest appeal.

njcommuter on November 26, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Selection is one thing, but price is definitely what attracts me. Otherwise I would buy my books and such through Barnes & Noble. (I don’t buy my music through Amazon very often, because I have a source that is cheaper. Then, yeah, it’s selection that makes my choice to go with Amazon.)

used merchandise should be exempt…

equanimous on November 25, 2012 at 8:20 PM

There’s several issues with that. It’s not generally exempt in b&m stores. How would you distinguish it? How would you stop the fraud (retailer opens all the packages, takes everything out, puts everything back in, tapes up packages, re-sells)?

GWB on November 25, 2012 at 8:38 PM

RFID chips in every cell and molecule, man!

/BUCK FARACK/

I consider a new tax as raising taxes. Currently, out of state sales are not taxed on business that do not have nexus in the state of customer. The Marketplace Fairness Act would make these sales subject to a sales tax. No on is proposong lowering any current taxes to balance these new taxes, of course the effect is raising taxes.

Also, *not* taxing something is not giving a hand out from the government! it’s limited government not interfering in the free market, the way things should be and what conservatives actually used to want.

I do not subscribe to the notion of this having anything to do with fairness or equality. It is not like the government is picking particular companies to tax and not tax. It’s not crony capitalism. On line sales across state boarders are completely different beasts than sales that take place in one physical location. Just as income and capital gains are different and taxed differently. Everyone who buys at a physical location is taxed the same according to their own state laws. Everyone who buys online from a company without a nexus in your state is not taxed. Seems fair to me. Don’t like it? Influence your state to fix your state tax law issues, enforce the use tax, whatever. Don’t get the federal government involved in a whole new way to tax and more layers of intrusion and complication.

What crony capitalism is what Amazon is doing. For years they tried to avoid the nexus laws by holding their warehouses in a separate company and used their large team of lawyers to argue that therefore nexus did not apply to them. Now states have finally pushed them legally to have to pay sales tax on sales to buyers in states they have physical warehouses, they want to use their heft and influence to hurt other online sellers who do NOT have physical presences like they do, so they do not have to deal with the competition from small online sellers. That is crony capitalism and it’s working for it and republicans are falling for it hook line and sinker.

Sorry, paying sales tax on top of exorbitant shipping costs puts online retailers at a disadvantage.

OxyCon on November 26, 2012 at 12:29 AM

So, they should get a hand up from the government because, in your opinion, their business model is less advantageous? How is that equal treatment?

taxes by nature are unfair and will never affect everyone equally

why are voluntarily transactions even taxed?

rose-of-sharon on November 26, 2012 at 12:41 AM

Huh? That doesn’t even make sense.

I for one am not calling on anyone to raise taxes – simply to make them fairer (I won’t say whether this legislation does that) and apply equally.

Business profits are taxed, income is taxed, why are voluntarily transactions even taxed? It seems so excessive. The higher sales taxes go the more commerce will go underground and/or convert to barter and trade.

From what I understand eBay is prepared to fight/lobby against the Marketplace Fairness Act and there are some FB groups with great information if anyone is interested in getting involved or learning more. Learn the boring details and put pressure on your reps.

Outlander on November 26, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Exactly. “Equality under the law” should be our watchword as conservatives.

I don’t agree that this has anything to do with fairness. Brick and mortar businesses have faced competition from mail order for 200 years but suddenly people not buying locally is unfair.

Rocks on November 25, 2012 at 10:03 PM

The difference is in degree. In ye olden days, yes, people ordered things out of mail order catalogs or toll-free home shopping numbers. But not to the degree that they order things online today. E-commerce is eclipsiing brick & mortar retail at a huge rate. Big box retailers are getting killed. And a big part of the reason why is preferential tax treatment for online retailers.

As conservatives, we balk when the government picks “winners and losers” in a bevy of transactions. We hate government regulations that hinder productivity. And yet here, you are asking Best Buy to work with a 5-10% pricing disadvantage over Amazon caused purely by government taxing policy. Isn’t that picking winners and losers?

Illinois cannot require the collection of Illinois tax unless the Indiana company has inventory, employees or a business location in Illinois.

So not billing sales tax for any out-of-state shipments saves on accounting costs (think of the cost of collecting and paying 44 different taxes every month). Companies can voluntarily collect the tax for the other state if they wish, but if they do not, then the customer is responsible to pay a use tax (usually on the income tax return) to their home state.

Amazon got caught because of its agreements with selling partners in other states or as in the case of Indiana, they obtained special dispensation to not collect the tax in exchange for Amazon providing jobs by locating warehouses in the state.

One thing is for sure is that if taxes are to be charged it should go to the state where the sale is made. I don’t see any reason why if I buy something online from someone in Texas I should be paying sales taxes to my home state. The concept that people become indentured servants who must pay their home state a tax every time they buy something is just wrong. The tax is on the sale, not the person. The concept of use taxes are just evil. No state says you owe use taxes on consumables you buy out of a state but if you pick up a carton of cigarettes while on a road trip suddenly you are your home state money? That is just wrong.

Taxing the internet is simply another money grab by greedy government out of control.

JIMV on November 25, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Mind you, I agree with “greedy government out of control”.

Taxing the internet is simply another money grab by greedy government out of control.

JIMV on November 25, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Ummm, they aren’t taxing the internet with this. They are taxing items purchased – just like the ones you buy at 7-11 or Wal-Mart.

Oh, and they already tax the internet – it’s in your ISP cost, in your landline cost, and in your cell phone costs.

Taxed
Enough
Already

gesh

There are plenty conservatives that work @ Wal-Mart…me for instance.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 25, 2012 at 6:43 PM

I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. That I must shop at a company that pushes outrageous policies I don’t support in order to contribute to your salary? Sorry, but my meager shopping $$s are not going to impact your job. If you think it will, look for another place to work…

heldmyw on November 25, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Which is why the point-of-sale should be where the retailer is located, not where the buyer is located.

What about the part of the Constitution which stipulates that there are no taxes on Interstate Commerce?

Theophile on November 25, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Which part is that? Do you mean this one?

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

We’re not talking taxes laid on exported goods, we’re talking tax on the sales of said goods. For it to fall under that prohibition, there would have to be an additional tax paid by the out-of-state purchaser above and beyond that paid by a local.

Or this one?

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws

This one is more troublesome, as I think it impacts the “usage tax” imposed on goods bought out of state and brought into your home state.

“Gosh! I sent my ‘friend’ in the Caymans some dough, and he just sent me a ‘gift’ of those loafers I wanted. He’s lucky to skip out on the sales taxes, because that would have jacked them up another 8%.”

used merchandise should be exempt…

equanimous on November 25, 2012 at 8:20 PM

There’s several issues with that. It’s not generally exempt in b&m stores. How would you distinguish it? How would you stop the fraud (retailer opens all the packages, takes everything out, puts everything back in, tapes up packages, re-sells)?