Amazon (AMZN) may have seen softer sales in states where it started to collect sales tax,...

This news story has 15 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »

Ariel Aharonovich Comments (433)
 
So very much expected.
Expect for more of he same - in both quantity (of states where this is happening) and magnitude (of this relatively fresh but growing trend)
17 Jan, 07:54 AM Reply Like

HS Comments (159)
 
meanwhile, insiders sell as if there is no tomorrow
17 Jan, 08:08 AM Reply Like

bgold1955 Comments (947)
 
They should have been charging sales tax 15 years ago.
17 Jan, 08:15 AM Reply Like

David Jackson Comments (1115)
 
It's fascinating the way the justification for the sales tax has implicitly shifted. Originally, the tax was understood by many to be one imposed on businesses in recognition of the fact that their physical presence in the state justified them being taxed. But now it's clearer that sales taxes are simply a source of state revenue imposed on consumers, irrespective of where the seller is domiciled.

It's not practical to police state boundaries to impose import duties from other states, but once an e-commerce behemoth like Amazon is logging all its sales and can report them to state governments, that becomes easy.

The implication of this is that extending sales taxes to e-commerce companies isn't a new tax or in any way unfair, as the tax is on consumers and not on the retailers.
18 Jan, 06:48 AM Reply Like

David Jackson Comments (1115)
 
It's fascinating the way the justification for the sales tax has implicitly shifted. Originally, the tax was understood by many to be one imposed on businesses in recognition of the fact that their physical presence in the state justified them being taxed. But now it's clearer that sales taxes are simply a source of state revenue imposed on consumers, irrespective of where the seller is domiciled.

It's not practical to police state boundaries to impose sales taxes on goods imported by consumers from other states, but once an e-commerce behemoth like Amazon is logging all its sales and can report them to state governments, that becomes easy.

The implication of this is that extending sales taxes to e-commerce companies isn't a new tax or in any way unfair, as the tax is on consumers and not on the retailers.
18 Jan, 06:48 AM Reply Like

krk Comments (576)
 
Sales Tax was never meant as a way to recover the costs the govt incurs for providing services to the retailer. It is actually a tax on the consumers and making the retailer responsible for collecting it is the only practical way to enforce the law, rather than the honor system of expecting the consumer to declare and pay the tax. The very same tax is alternatively called the USE TAX that a consumer owes when the tax had not been collected by the seller as in the case of purchases from out-of-state online merchants.

One can argue about the merits of this system of raising revenues, and that is a separate debate. As long as this system of taxation stands, it should be fairly and uniformly applied without unfairly favoring the net-savvy consumer who are the ones who disproportionately benefit and treating the out-of-state online merchants as a favored class of merchants exempted from the task of collecting the consumption tax like their fellow in-state competitors.

The issue of mainstreet retail facing an unfair competitive handicap is a second issue which has its own negative consequences to the community in terms of jobs and growth and offends our ideals of fair and level playing field for doing business.
18 Jan, 10:07 AM Reply Like

chopchop0 Comments (1661)
 
I knew this would be an important catalyst whenever it would actually come to fruition. Wal-mart is able to achieve lowest costs from its supplier than even AMZN and have expanded their e-commerce presence significantly.

Watch out, AMZN longs
17 Jan, 08:49 AM Reply Like

Neil459 Comments (2640)
 
"They should have been charging sales tax 15 years ago."

Raise taxes, reduce activity. Pure basic economics, unless your a Democrat. Of course that is not what this is, this is just taking money from the big bad corporation and giving it to the big bad government. I guess that is ok, because no one cares about the individual that has to pay this tax. Tax payers are expendable, worthless, just a piece of dirt that has to be trampled on. Let's see if we can take all of their money.
17 Jan, 09:16 AM Reply Like

chopchop0 Comments (1661)
 
"Raise taxes, reduce activity. Pure basic economics, unless your a Democrat. Of course that is not what this is, this is just taking money from the big bad corporation and giving it to the big bad government. I guess that is ok, because no one cares about the individual that has to pay this tax. Tax payers are expendable, worthless, just a piece of dirt that has to be trampled on. Let's see if we can take all of their money."

Not really a fair argument in regards to sales taxes. Why should AMZN get a free pass while B&M retailers have to collect it? AMZN doesn't need this crutch, especially now. Time to level the playing field. Alternatively, get rid of sales taxes for B&M too.
17 Jan, 09:18 AM Reply Like

Neil459 Comments (2640)
 
If you want to level the play field (which I do agree with) then tell the B&M retailers they don't have to charge sales tax. Why level the playing field by gutting the consumer. Why not tell the government to take a hike. It's the government that is wasting billions of not trillions of dollars.

Why do you stand against the individual tax payer?
17 Jan, 09:23 AM Reply Like

chopchop0 Comments (1661)
 
Sales taxes are a state decision, not a national one. Some states have no income tax and use sales taxes to fund the government. That's up to each state.

Why do you stand against states' rights?
17 Jan, 09:25 AM Reply Like

Neil459 Comments (2640)
 
Because government has overstepped it's bounds at all levels. If we don't stop it now we will never stop it. I am against states rights because a strong state means reduced freedom for every good hard working honest individual.

The states (and federals) only goal is to reward felons, slackers, gold diggers, and other hanger-ons by rewarding them with free room & board, free food, free education, and free entertainment while at the same time taking food, education, room & board, and entertainment from the hard working individuals that are paying the taxes. This is at it core unfair, unjust, and not sustainable.

You did not answer the question about why you are against hardworking single moms, just trying to buy for their kids and why you think they have so much extra to spend that another 5 to 10% can just be taken from their pocketbook just to make it fair for B&M retailers.
17 Jan, 09:34 AM Reply Like

ReligiousWacko Comments (134)
 
hows about we let retailers with names starting A-M to not collect sales tax but force those with N-Z names to do so? Would that be fairer to public?
17 Jan, 10:46 AM Reply Like

krk Comments (576)
 
The sales tax loophole allowed Amazon to become the price king of retail as B&M could not price compete net of taxes without taking a loss while Amazon could still make $$ profits with skimpy % profit margins. Once the loophole gets closed nationwide, B&M can employ price matching to effectively push back but the bruising loss of market share during all these years of unfair competition will be hard to reverse.
17 Jan, 09:46 AM Reply Like

Neil459 Comments (2640)
 
"The sales tax loophole allowed Amazon to become the price king of retail"

There is more to competition than price. For example, what do you do to counteract the fact that B&M stores have a local presence and one can just walk in and pick up a purchase? That is not fair to Amazon?

krk, see fairness is hard. What you think is fairness, is really just favoritism, agenda, and vote buying.
17 Jan, 12:44 PM Reply Like