Amazon v. California, Round II

September 6, 2011 -

While Amazon might be on the precipice of usurping legislation passed earlier this year by the state of California with a voter referendum this November, lawmakers are on the attack. The New York Times chronicles the fight going on in California in this article, which is interesting because it pits traditional retail in the state against online retailers. Earlier this year the state passed a law to collect sales tax from any online retailers that have a physical presence within its borders - including resellers and those that earn money from referrals. Amazon, which is headquartered in Seattle, Washington, has no plans to pay its portion of  that sales tax, which the state estimates is around $100 million annually (from all online retailers, not just Amazon).

The big problem for lawmakers is that most online retailers - most notably Amazon - are not playing ball. The company cut its ties to anyone in the state that has a physical address and has argued that its only presence there - a manufacturing facility that builds the Kindle - is not subject to the law because it is not engaged in actual commerce. Further, Amazon easily collected 50,000 signatures it needed to put the whole online sales tax issue on the ballot in November.

This has pissed off more than a few state legislators, who are already trying to pass emergency measures to kill that November vote. The New York Times article notes that Democrats would need at least two Republican votes for their bill to become law. That prospect is a long shot, no matter how they slice it. Meanwhile, Amazon offered to open up distribution centers in the state if California gave them a free pass on the sales tax collection. Governor Jerry Brown and legislators have already said no to that proposal.

But not everything will come up sunshine and roses for Amazon either. Assuming that voters invalidate the sales tax law, powerful lobbyists are waiting to sue Amazon in federal court, such as the California Retailers Association.

The real question is, should voters in the state be forced to pay sales tax on online purchases? Remember in the 90's when you couldn't get a politician to say it was a good idea to tax anything on the Internet? Clearly those days are in the rear-view, but should consumers in California really give a state that continues to mismanage the tax revenue it already receives an additional $100 million to spend?

We don't have answers, just more questions. We’ll continue to follow this story as it develops.

Source: NYT


Comments

Re: Amazon v. California, Round II

Reason Magazine published an article on this topic today. They even proposed a solution to these internet taxation problems:

There are better ways to level the playing field. One solution is for states to cut taxes on in-state vendors. Another option is an “origin-based” tax regime, under which states would exercise their right to tax equally all sales inside their borders, regardless of the buyer’s residence or the ultimate location of consumption. Under that model, all sales would be “sourced” to the seller’s principal place of business and taxed accordingly. This approach is already fairly common. A Washington, D.C., resident who buys a car across the Potomac in Virginia, for instance, is taxed at the origin of sale in Virginia regardless of whether he brings the car back into the District. Each day in America, there are millions of cross-border transactions that are taxed only at the origin of the sale; no questions are asked about where the good will be consumed. We should extend the same principle to cross-border sales involving mail order and the Internet. Such an approach would be good for retailers, good for consumers, and good for federalism.

Re: Amazon v. California, Round II

Reason's "solution" is terrible. Just like Reason (a bastion of right-wing anarcho-libertarianism).

Suggesting California cut taxes on in-state vendors is ludicrous in an essentially bankrupt state. And the "origin-based" tax is questionably constitutional, impossibly difficult to enforce, logistically impossible to coordinate across 50 states individually in a useable and understandable manner that is fair to consumers, and is little more than a trumpeting of the "States Rights uber Alles/Tax Cuts 4 Lyfe cuz taxes r bad" motto Reason swears by. 

Re: Amazon v. California, Round II

How is it ludicrous? It is how brick and mortar already functions. If I cross the border between Oklahoma and Texas and buy something in Texas, I pay the Texas sales tax. The same with an online purchase. Such a solution would be the same for online; If I buy something from Amazon, I get charged the Washington sales tax.

Where ever the company is based, that is the sales tax charged. I don't see how that is hard to work out.

Re: Amazon v. California, Round II

The real question is, should voters in the state be forced to pay sales tax on online purchases?

The answer is, yes. In fact, we are already supposed to be paying the tax value on products purchased out of state. It's called the use tax if I remember correctly. Most people don't pay it and its almost impossible and highly impractical for the government to try and find out who owes how much.

What California is trying to do is hold the online retailers responsible for collecting the taxes that their constituents should have been paying in the first place. Amazon is trying to deny having any presence in the state that would force it to collect sales tax like any other CA retailer would. While its not difficult to get 50,000 idiots to sign a petition for "no new taxes" the fact is, this is a tax that should have been paid already, then maybe the state wouldn't be in as bad a financial problem as it is (it'd still be in debt, but not as much).

The days of free and untaxed internet sales are quickly coming to an end. I'm not saying there's no such thing as a free lunch, it's just that there's no such thing as a free lunch forever. Someone will always try to take their percentage, whether earned or not.

I hate broccoli/ and think it totally sucks/ Why isn't it meat?

Re: Amazon v. California, Round II

I'm completely unsympathetic to California.  They bankrupted their own state with frivolous pet projects like EMA.  Let them clean up their own mess.

Re: Amazon v. California, Round II

Watch them waste millions more fighting Amazon over this and losing like they did with ema. We wouldn't have so many budget problems if they dumped the nanny state routine and stopped figuring for these BS laws. My college receivedal a bill for 1 million dollars, probably to cover part of the state's lawyer fees.

Re: Amazon v. California, Round II

Considering California's proven incompetence with money, I fail to see how collecting more tax is going to help.

Re: Amazon v. California, Round II

Well, California has a bad money situation in the first place... it is one of the only states where the comptroller and governor are elected separately, so neither actually works for the other and bad budgets kinda evolve naturally out of it.  Good example of what happens when blame/responsiblity is concentrated but power is not.

Re: Amazon v. California, Round II

Why, they can get back the money they lost before!

Re: Amazon v. California, Round II

So their politicians can burn it on more vanity projects.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
ZenLet the ax fall Sleaker...lessons MUST be learned...08/20/2014 - 11:44am
Andrew EisenNote to Shout boxers: if it's not a current GP story or something currently being discussed in the Shout box, please provide a link to what you're referring to or at least some context so we know what you're talking about and can discuss it with you.08/20/2014 - 11:44am
Sleaker*prepares fluffy kitten for execution as no link has been forthcoming*08/20/2014 - 11:14am
ZenMasked, guessing you are talking about the Wii game which was later ported to 360/PS3. I never played it..but I did grab the sweet gold Classic Controller from it to finish my Gold Wii controller set lol.08/20/2014 - 11:06am
Andrew EisenOnce again, MaskedPixelante, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Are you talking about the Wii remake in 2010? The PS3/360 enhanced port of the remake in 2011? Something new? Please, for the love of fluffy kittens, provide a damn link.08/20/2014 - 9:57am
MaskedPixelanteSo, if I finish this game Activision claims is the GoldenEye remake, but looks suspiciously like a rejected CoD game, do I get the REAL GoldenEye remake?08/20/2014 - 8:37am
Papa MidnightWii U Games finding Solidarity with PC Gamers :(08/19/2014 - 6:09pm
Zenbuy all of the bad DLC before they even showed the main content everyone was waiting for. I paid for it, I wanted it, and I got tossed aside.08/19/2014 - 4:10pm
ZenIanC: Yep, both Call of Duty games did the same thing holding back all DLC and then releasing the day one map 2 YEARS later out of the blue. Why play what they won't support. Warner Bros canceled their DLC after promising it because Wii U owners didn't08/19/2014 - 4:09pm
Andrew EisenShe's the developer of Depression Quest. It's an interesting game (although I wouldn't call it fun) and you can check it out for free at depressionquest.com.08/19/2014 - 2:48pm
Sleakerwhat's all this Zoe quinn stuff all over and should I even bother looking it up?08/19/2014 - 2:37pm
IanCExactly Zen. The third one had random delays to the DLC and they just came out seemingly at random with no warning, and the 4th they didn't even bother.08/19/2014 - 2:31pm
ZenI may have bought both AC games on Wii U, but WHY would anyone be expected to get the game when they came out MONTHS before release that they were skipping DLC and ignoring the game? They poisoned the market on themselves then blamed Nintendo players.08/19/2014 - 1:27pm
Papa MidnightIn review, that's fair, Andrew. I just tend to take Gawker articles with a lot of salt, and skepticism.08/19/2014 - 12:07pm
Matthew WilsonFor one has a English speaking support team for devs. Devs have said any questions they have, were translated in to Japanese. then back in to English. 08/19/2014 - 11:41am
Adam802they need to realize the "wii-fad" era is pretty much over and start rebooting some old great franchises like they are doing with star fox08/19/2014 - 11:39am
Adam802unfortunatly, this seems to represent 3rd party's position on the wiiU in general. Nintendo has always sucessfully relied on 1st party but now since 3rd parties and console "power" are so important this gen, they're in trouble.08/19/2014 - 11:38am
IanCOkay, so what can Nintendo do to these 3rd parties? Huh? If a company release games late with missing content then of course it won't sell. Seems simple to me.08/19/2014 - 11:25am
Andrew EisenSakurai and Co. REALLY need to go back in there and re-pose Samus. She is so incredibly broken.08/19/2014 - 11:06am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician