While billionaire Jeff Bezos is off crashing spaceships (or wannabe spaceships, anyway) in the West Texas desert, his company’s unfair tax advantage is disintegrating too.
In July, a new California law forced online retailers like Amazon to collect sales taxes if they have a physical presence in the state, but the Los Angeles Times reports that Amazon is still refusing to collect taxes. It has stopped paying commissions to its affiliates in California, and it claims, implausibly, that its Kindle subsidiary isn’t a physical presence in the state (an outdated Supreme Court ruling holds that states and municipalities can’t tax sales unless the retailer has a physical “nexus” in the state).
In the meantime, Amazon decided to go over the head of the politicians a voter referendum. So far it has spent more than $5.2 million on the campaign, cynically called “More Jobs Not Taxes,” in the not-unlikely hope that ill-informed voters, who on average will spend approximately thirty seconds studying the issue, will pull the lever for more job instead of more taxes. Ill-informed voters like this one quoted in The New York Times yesterday:
Sabrina Nelson, who lives in suburban Los Angeles, is the opposite: full of rage at the state. She and her husband, Jeff, are the proprietors of Vegsource.com, a resource for vegans, and they say Amazon’s move deprived them of a healthy chunk of their income.
“Why didn’t these legislators who supposedly represent me care about us?” asked Ms. Nelson, who is in her mid-40s. “They did this law for Wal-Mart and Macy’s and Target. But the genie is not going back into the bottle. You’re not going to stop people from buying on the Internet.”
The only way to beat back a nefarious corporate interest these days is to have another powerful corporate interest join the opposition. We saw that most recently with the debit-card fight. The best interests of 310 million consumers wasn’t nearly enough to beat the banks, but the retail lobby sure was.
California’s politicians are unhappy with Amazon’s end-around and are declaring war by trying to pass an “urgency” bill with a two-thirds vote in the legislature that would preempt Amazon’s referendum. Fortunately, Amazon has some powerful corporate opponents, including Big Retail, which is why this actually stands a chance, despite Republican legislators’ reflexive anti-tax position. The LAT:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and its allies in the Alliance for Main Street Fairness, a group that includes big-box stores and independent businesses, still face a major challenge in getting their legislative maneuver to work.
It’s unclear whether sponsors of the measure have the two-thirds vote needed to adopt an urgency bill; the existing law picked up one Republican vote.
But heavyweight Republican-leaning lobbying groups, including the California retailers group and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, are pushing GOP legislators to support the plan.
It’s a disgrace that an independent bookstore or record shop is forced to compete with a $40 billion-a-year corporation while ma’s and pa’s prices are marked up 8 percent to 10 percent because it actually collects sales taxes. I don’t shed any tears for Wal-Mart, but that tax disparity is also unfair to the big-box guys who have to collect taxes in their retail stores and online too. It’s just nuts to let one retail sector have such an enormous price advantage, particularly because retailing is such a low-margin business and more shoppers are going online.
But Amazon plays dirty, and it’s not going down without a scrap. Now it’s trying to buy off legislators by promising to bring jobs in exchange for a tax exemption. The NYT:
To sway a few legislators, Amazon is making a counterproposal: if California drops the tax issue for a few years, the retailer says it will build two warehouses in the state and hire 7,000 workers. In a state with 12 percent unemployment, that might seem an attractive offer.
What’s interesting there is that Amazon is only asking for three years of exemption in exchange for the jobs. While that may look desperate, its tax policy is actually distorting its business, which has very good reasons to build warehouses in the biggest state in the union.
- 1
- 2
Tax cuts for jobs is a losing proposition for any state. Corporations take their tax breaks, then leave. Amazon should play fair, but they won't. I'm not usually on Walmart's side, but bricks and mortar merchants have the right in this match-up.
#1 Posted by Lawyermom, CJR on Tue 6 Sep 2011 at 07:27 PM
I have to pay $34.00 +taxes for Ian Kershaw's new book, "The End" at my Barnes and Noble on 86th Street. I can buy it at Amazon for only $22.00 NET including shipping. Why on earth would I go to the former and foresake the latter? The consumer is a big net winner. Why encourage a state legislator to misuse funds I could better use to suit myself? The cretins from The Bronx who rapturously defeated a money saving WalMart for the Kingsbridge Armory site surely did a great service for NYC. Wake up Chittum!
#2 Posted by Mike Robbins, CJR on Wed 7 Sep 2011 at 05:10 PM
A couple of important fact-thingies are missing from Ryan's latest commie diatribe:
1. Internet sales are NOT exempt from sales tax in California. Buyers are required to pay these taxes. The tax cheats here are the BUYERS, not AMAZON! (But hey, why let a mere fact get in the way of another Chittum Commie Fairy Tale, right?)
2. Amazon has publicly called for a national sales tax for internet retailers.
You'd think a self-proclaimed "professional journalist" would dole out these facts to give the readers a true picture.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 7 Sep 2011 at 05:21 PM
HELLOOO???!!!!
Anyone home?!...
Why can't we acknowledge the R E A L I T Y that Amazon's current sales in California are NOT exempt from sales taxes, HUH?
This IS the R E A L I T Y after all!...
WHY can't we acknowledge the R E A L I T Y that the people cheating the tax laws in California are not working for Amazon, but are instead the BUYERS of Amazon's products? HUH?
How about it, Ryan? Why don't your readers deserve this little slice of TRUTH?
REPEAT! The people currently cheating California out of sales taxes on Amazon purchases in California are the BUYERS who fail to pay sales taxes!..
PERIOD!
And why don't your readers deserve to know the Inconvenient Truth that Amazon has called for a uniform sales tax for internet retailers? HUH?..
Dude... Do you feel any obligation as self-proclaimed "professional journalist" to deal out these unpleasant "fact-thingies"? HUH?
Man up and do your damned job, Ryan!
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 10:27 PM
But Padi, don't you understand? The innocuous govt needs "revenue" to finance its wonderfully effective, super-efficient, unquestionably moral, and always necessary schemes; therefore, every private exchange is guilty until sufficiently extorted.
#5 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 9 Sep 2011 at 12:28 AM
The funny thing is that Amazon plainly states that it's transactions are subject to sales tax!:
"We do not collect sales or use taxes in all states. For states imposing sales or use taxes, your purchase is subject to use tax unless it is specifically exempt from taxation. Your purchase is not exempt merely because it is made over the Internet or by other remote means. Many states require purchasers to file a sales/use tax return at the end of the year reporting all of the taxable purchases that were not taxed and to pay tax on those purchases. Details of how to file these returns may be found at the websites of your respective taxing authorities."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=468512
The California law is plainly stated:
"Many individuals and businesses in California buy items from out-of-state retailers that are not required or authorized to collect California tax. If you make such a purchase and then use, give away, store, or otherwise consume the item in California, you may owe California use tax. This is true whether you order the item over the Internet, by telephone, or by mail. The use tax rate for any California location is the same as the sales tax rate."
Now why would any self-proclaimed "professional journalist" omit these little truisms?
I could see why a commie/liberal activist hack would hide the ball and gloss over the fact that Amazon isn't cheating California taxpayers (the buyers are), but why would a "professional journalist" do so?
But here in Chittumland, the "people" can do no wrong, and "corporations" can do no good. So any of those inconvenient "fact-thingies" that counter the commie/liberal line are swept under the rug.
People cheating on their taxes? Or food stamps? Or unemployment? Or Medicaid? Nothing to see here, people! Move on! It's all "Wall Street's" fault.
A corporation makes money on an investment? Plain thievery! Any profit is theft. Unearned looting from the communal treasury - money stolen from the hands of the workers.
A corporation loses money? Plain fraud! Criminal malfeasance!
It's like Pravda, circa 1955.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 9 Sep 2011 at 08:06 AM