Newegg Defies New York Sales Tax Law 635
JagsLive informs us that the electronics retailer Newegg.com is defying New York lawmakers; it has suddenly stopped collecting sales tax from New York online shoppers. The "Amazon tax," which went into effect June 1, requires online merchants to collect sales tax if they have any affiliates in the state. Amazon is complying but has sued the state on constitutional grounds. Overstock.com dropped all of its New York affiliates and then joined the Amazon lawsuit. Newegg started out complying with the law on June 1, but stopped collecting taxes for New York on August 21. From Newegg's letter to its customers: "After careful review and consideration, we are pleased to inform you that we have stopped collecting New York sales tax, effective August 21, 2008," reads an email the company tossed at customers late last week, including at least one loyal Reg reader. "This decision was driven by your direct and candid feedback and our continued commitment to you as our valued customers."
"This decision was driven by your feedback." (Score:5, Insightful)
"This decision was driven by your direct and candid feedback and our continued commitment to you as our valued customers."
This is obviously just a publicity statement. There is no way in the world a large corporation would assume the massive risk of defying a law like this on the advice of its customers. Something else precipitated this.
Most likely, the law department in the company examined the law, and then the risk management division (or whoever it is: I have no idea how Newegg is managed) decided that the risk was worth taking. PR, seeing an opportunity for, well, PR, made up a fluff statement about how the dear customers were the reason.
Not that I'm complaining.
And this is good for local businesses exactly how? (Score:4, Insightful)
[quote]Overstock.com dropped all of its New York affiliates[/quote]
This measure was supposed to boost local businesses and lower unemployment. Do you think if Amazon and NewEgg drop theirs, the $50m in revenue will be paid out in unemployment?
I am disgusted by the government of my state. I moved from PA to NY for a better job, but literally everything is higher taxed and more expensive. The taxes don't make any sense either. I live near Rochester, NY. Depending on the locality you're in, you can pay 6% (Henrietta) to 10% (Greece) taxes on a variety of things but if you send a letter it's all Rochester, NY. And then there is the paper store, I mean government agencies. Everything needs a permit, paper, registration or a tax. You can't get a single piece of paper without paying at least $10 for it.
It is like every other tax. (Score:4, Insightful)
If consumers, for that matter income earners, had a true understanding of their tax load they would be up in arms. It is one thing to ask for this, that, and the other thing, from your government when you don't know the cost.
So governments do what they do best, they hide the tax. What is the number way to hide the real tax from the taxpayer? Embed it. This means hide it in the cost of goods and services. Lets use an oil company like Exxon for fun, after all its accused of having WINFALL profits. In 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income after tax), or profit, was $39.5 billion. So, where does that 27.9 BILLION dollars come from. The taxpayer. Exxon merely wrote the check for all the dollars it collected from you and me to pay it.
The politicians win on every front here, they can hide the true cost of the tax load on the American worker and vilify any corporation that makes big numbers as being against the poor, downtrodden, hungry, or my favorite "children".
Ignorance and envy are the two greatest weapons the politicians employ and from watching the current elections it really pays off
Re:It is like every other tax. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Use tax = sales tax and you are supposed to pay (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it means we can't ignore use taxes as an unconstitutional violation of interstate commerce. Pay if you want, but few do - And suggesting we make it "painless" by having the merchants handle the tax completely misses (and actually hides) the point that we shouldn't pay such taxes in the first place.
End this moronic madness now
And there, we agree (in word if not in spirit) - Let's entirely do away with the single most regressive taxes we have. Personally, I think we should also do away with "withholding" as well, and make everyone actually cough up $10-30k every April 15th - Watch how fast we get serious tax reform when people realize how much they actually pay, rather than merely bitching about it as a mostly-meaningless "rate" they don't really feel thanks to the government slowly boiling the frog.
Any tax revolt is a good one. (Score:4, Insightful)
How ironic it is, that, we hear a bunch of liberals bitching about those terrible people on Wall Street, in New York, and it turns out those terrible people on Wall Street took such a beating that the state is looking at a nearly billion dollar tax short fall. Thus, in New York we learn the ultimately failing of progressive taxation, just as we have learned nationally. If the rich do not make any money, the government is screwed.
I'm sick of hearing everyone try and talk about increasing taxes as "providing revenue". It's an insult to compare the activities of government to the activities of the private sector. Government is basically a collection of pie in the sky power mongers that use the power of the gun, cops directed by the legislature, to impose their financial will on people. By contrast, all a private company do is offer a good or a service in return, and thus they are compelled to offer something back.
New York, in particular, is disgusting. They have a tax policy that reflects decades of liberal orthodoxy and the stupidity of the results just staggers the mind. I mean, they raise taxes on cigarettes, and are suddenly horrified to find that people do not buy cigarettes in New York. Now, what do you think the enlightened liberals do up there? Do you think they set the tax at a more reasonable level? No... they call out the cops and pass even -more- laws designed to try and ban people from cigarettes from out of state.
Now, of course, they reach out and are suing, again, with the barrel of the legislative gun, trying to sue someone outside of the state, like a crab or a cancer spreading and grasping desperately for any piece of loot that it can steal.... and they call this revenue.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:2, Insightful)
In the end, I think there's going to be an epic battle between consumer and civil advocacy groups and states over SSUTA and similar plans to collect sales tax on online sales. The 'use tax' law is clearly an attempt by states to levy taxes on interstate transactions (commerce between and among the states) and the Constitution squarely places that power in the hands of Congress exclusively.
These use taxes have never been challenged in court and if states push much harder, I'm betting they will be.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress will 'fix' it (Score:3, Insightful)
Then it will go to Congress and they will pass new laws allowing these taxes. The current Congress never met a tax it didn't like.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It is like every other tax. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Congress will 'fix' it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:1, Insightful)
The whole problem for being smart humans are kind of gullible.
TAX
Hey I think will get me a police force or just a lot of goons with guns and tell the public it for your safety.
You need to pay me - and every year I will give you less and less that way I can charge you more and more.
If you think you are smart check out freedomainradio.com
arguing about tax is like arguing about whose god is better.
support the troops don't send them back for multiple tours
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:3, Insightful)
The commerce clause certainly prevents a state from imposing tariffs on imports from other states. However, the use tax is not a tariff. It is a tax it imposes on its own citizens based on what they will do with the item, not those conducting the commerce.
For instance, in my state, items brought into the state for personal use are generally taxed at the same rate as items bought in state if they are brought into the state within 6 months of purchase. Items brought in for resale are not taxed.
So, clearly, this isn't a tax on commerce. It is a state imposing a tax on its citizens...which is well within the constitution.
How are you rated insightful? (Score:1, Insightful)
What part of EMBEDDED don't people understand.
WE THE PEOPLE ARE NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
We stopped being the government when we allowed ourselves to be divided among petty lines with cute little labels like Democrat and Republican.
That money coming out of Exxon which you claim is coming back to the people CAME FROM THE DAMN PEOPLE. What, does Exxon just magically print dollars it gives to the government? Is there some kind of money fairy in your world?
Any dollar, ANY, that Exxon paid in taxes came out of THE PEOPLE'S pocket. There is no other source. The people earn incomes, which are taxed, and buy services, which are taxed, and buy products, which are taxed. Do you understand now?
Dollars are earned by individuals. They are from direct work, investment, sale of capital, etc. They are taxed. The remains are the people's to spend as they see fit. However hidden from the ignorant is that for everything they buy there are more taxes embedded.
I know, there are evil rich people who pay 35% and you pay 28% but its not fair they still have more dollars. What has this country come to if we are so filled with spite and envy that we begrudge anyone doing better than us or set limits on how well any one person is allowed to do?
Don't go off track and vilify a corporation. They are owned by people; either directly or indirectly; and they employ people. They are nothing more than a giant shell that the government loves to exploit by using them to collect money from the people's paycheck (because too many are only concerned with what they take home and not what they actually earned) and they can collect yet again when the remains are spent to buy stuff.
Damn.
Correction To the Email (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:2, Insightful)
This is flamebait/offtopic or whatever but i don't care.
Liberals, meet liberalism. It costs money. Don't bitch. You're in favor of all the programs, f'in pay for it.
Re:Any tax revolt is a good one. (Score:1, Insightful)
Wall Street tax revenues are not down because their taxes are too high. Thats and absurd bit of logic you are trying to use to justify your biases.
Let me just restate more clearly: The economy is not tanking because Wall Street suits can't pay their taxes. That is just about the stupidest, most intellectually dishonest post I have read (at +4 Insightful, no less) this year.
Welfare States (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the "lazies" you're talking about are the "Red States", which all get more money back from the Federal government [taxfoundation.org] than they send it in Federal taxes. The "Blue States" like New York pay to prop up those Welfare States by sending more taxes to DC than we get back.
There are a few notable exceptions. New Mexico is the poorest state, with the most tribal population, and lots of large Federal military bases and labs, so its welfare goes mainly to big Federal contractors who don't spread it around the state much. Hawaii is another state with a lot of poor people, many of them tribal, and lots of large Federal military bases. Maine gets a little more than it pays, but again is overall pretty poor. Texas, that "Republican Paradise", is taxed and feeladen every which way, in a giant ripoff, getting just a little less than it pays. Florida is right near the breakeven, but at least it's paying to prop up a system it was #1 in ushering in with its 2000 election. New Hampshire somehow gets screwed, too.
But other than that, the other 44 states all demonstrate that voting Democratic does get you taxed to redistribute your wealth to the rest of the country - even when the redistributors are a Republican controlled Federal government. The list also demonstrates the myth that "the West is independent": other than NM and TX, all those Western states are subsidized by the rest of the country, as they have been since they were colonized.
That list represents the most valuable wealth redistribution programme ever undertaken. Run by Republicans, at the peak of their power. Even as those Republicans cut Federal taxes while running up the Federal expenses, both in record amounts. But evidently spreading the benefits along more or less strict Party lines.
Re:It is like every other tax. (Score:1, Insightful)
The $2 in previous corporate taxes will be given to the executives and shareholders.
Re:Welfare States (Score:3, Insightful)
When you stop doing it, large men with guns come and take you away
Bit a difference between individuals doing it and a state government taking exception to the fact that it's citizens are effectively subsidizing other parts of the country.
In the case of New York it's particularly outrageous. We get back around 80 cents on the dollar in Federal services/money. It's espically infuriating when you talk about Homeland Security funding. We have a lot of juicy targets in this state and suffered the most on 9/11 yet Wyoming gets more funding per capita than we do. WTF is wrong with that picture? Is Osama sitting in his cave plotting the next big attack on Wyoming?
I've often thought that we needed someone like Ted Stevens or Robert Byrd working for us in DC. There are basically two kinds of politican -- one kind that gets into politics for big issues, causes and party politics (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Charles Schumer, Mitt Romney, etc) and the kind that gets into politics to bring stuff home (Ted Stevens, Robert Byrd, etc). New York has always seemed to get more of the issues type politicians. Better for the nation as a whole but not so well for us.... Hillary in particular has completely failed to live up to the promises she made back when she first ran for Senate.
correlation != causation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:4, Insightful)
Liberals, meet liberalism. It costs money
It seems to me that Conservatism also costs money [nationalpriorities.org].....
And before you go and whine that Bush and the GOP aren't real "Conservatives" that's what they are passing themselves off as and they are getting the lions share of the support from people who fashion themselves as Conservatives. Where were the Conservatives when Ron Paul needed the support during the primaries?
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you taxing the sale, or are you taxing the use?
If you're taxing the sale, then you're interfering with interstate commerce.
If you're taxing the use, then you're discriminating in favor of goods sold in state, because they aren't being taxed for use as well.
Re:How are you rated insightful? (Score:4, Insightful)
"I know, there are evil rich people who pay 35% and you pay 28% but its not fair they still have more dollars. What has this country come to if we are so filled with spite and envy that we begrudge anyone doing better than us or set limits on how well any one person is allowed to do?"
I guess you're right. I'd be happy to get back to the good old days of the USA, when "the greatest generation" had a top tax bracket of 70%-94% all the way from 1936 to 1981.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_progressivity_in_federal_income_tax [wikipedia.org]
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a way to close a loophole the online retailers are using to give themselves a leg up over brick and mortar stores.
The Sears catalog was first issued in 1888, 120 years ago:
http://www.searsarchives.com/catalogs/chronology.htm [searsarchives.com]
Out of state purchases have been happening for over a century. It sure took NY a long time to get upset about it. The difference with Amazon is they're doing it better than it's ever been done before. So because Amazon is succeeding too well, NY wants a piece of the action. I say leave Amazon alone. Let NY cut some fat out of their system rather than trying to find new ways to squeeze the taxpayer.
Re:It is like every other tax. (Score:4, Insightful)
FFS. I covered this. Gas is something that most people need. Not want, need. There are few enough oil companies that they can keep prices high and not worry about being out-priced by a competitor, and people will pay for it because they have to.
You have a point if you were looking at the United States in a vacuum. Globally however there are a bit more than a "few" oil companies and pump prices (with the exception of states that subsidize the costs for their citizens) are going up across the World. This isn't a uniquely American problem.
China is putting millions of new vehicles on the road each year. Ditto for India. Meanwhile oil production is falling pretty much everywhere. Is it really that hard of a concept to grasp that oil is a global commodity that is currently facing increased demand at a time when production is leveling off/dropping? This is economics 101 -- you don't have to be Adam Smith to understand it.
If they couldn't just charge what they wanted, the prices wouldn't be even as high as they are now, let alone what they were a couple of months ago
What are you basing this on other than your gut feeling? Congress has investigated the oil companies multiple times for price gouging. They've come up empty every single time. Do you really think that there isn't some ambitious politician that would love to make an issue out of this if he/she could prove they were fixing prices?
Where do you think Exxon gets their oil from? Do you think it's free to obtain? They have a pay the Saudis/Canadians/Mexicans/Venezuelans/Russians/etc market rates to obtain that crude. If they refuse to pay market rates then the producers will just sell it to someone who will -- the Europeans, Chinese or Indians. Even American crude operates under this same basic principle -- why would Exxon sell crude oil under it's direct control below market rates?
The only real solution to this problem is to change the energy paradigm or produce more oil. I prefer the former option given the environmental impact of carbon based fuel but even I'm enough of a realist to know that the switchover isn't going to happen overnight. Do you think the existing transportation infrastructure was built overnight? Tens of thousands of service stations? Hundreds of millions of cars? The mechanics that work on those cars? The dealers that sell them?
What should be done is either some regulation
What do you want to regulate? Honestly.... what would you regulate that would bring prices down? I'm not opposed to all regulation but in this instance I really don't think it's going to help us much. Moreover I'm not convinced that the current price of oil is a bad thing, given that it's finally resulting in people changing their consumption habits.
or trying to get some competition going
Where is that competition going to obtain it's oil from? Do you think there is some surplus of available oil on the market that American oil companies aren't taking advantage of?
And comparing oil companies to telecom doesn't help your argument at all
I wasn't comparing them. Just pointing out the absurdity of targeting the oil industry for it's "excessive" profits.
Re:Welfare States (Score:2, Insightful)
"...all those Western states are subsidized by the rest of the country..."
My reading comprehension is just fine. How's yours? Oh, that's right, it sucks.
"And though Maine receives the welfare at a substantially higher rate than it it pays in taxes, it pays so little in taxes compared to, say, New York, that it's actually getting a little more than it pays"
It receives 40% more in taxes than it pays, which puts it in the upper 25% of all states. I'm not sure where you keep getting this 'little bit more' idea. Your link does not list any total or relative amounts.
Re:Welfare States (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, you are a perfect example of how Republicans shortchanging education makes Republicans who can't think.
I think there's some irony to be found in there, considering a person's current political alignment can't retroactively affect a change on their education. I'm sure this guy had exactly the same education that plenty of 'Democrats' (or whatever alignment you consider yourself) had.
Don't mind me, I just get fed up seeing people spout off 'republican this', 'democrat that' as if they are spitting out abominable insults. It would be funny, if there wasn't so much hate or ego involved. Reminds me of that Dr Seuss story about the star bellied sneetches.
Re:Welfare States (Score:2, Insightful)
If that sentence actually meant what that response perverted it into, it would have said "all the Western states", not "all those Western states".
You did say "the Western states"!
The list also demonstrates the myth that "the West is independent"
Again, I ask, how is your reading comprehension? Again, I answer, it sucks.
Oh, and I'm not a Republican. But it was a nice attempt to try to make me look 'biased' somehow.
Re:Welfare States (Score:4, Insightful)
Although it was poorly put, he does have a point. Cities naturally operate more efficiently, so while each citizen can afford to pay more taxes, they don't need as much taxes to operate. Some things the federal government pays for, like the highway system, are more keyed to land area than population. Places that are more sparsely populated will most likely get more money than they give.
Likewise, the Red/Blue State probability is linked to population density: people starting families tend to move to places of low population density, and they are highly correlated with voting Republican [nytimes.com].
Now, is it a good thing that some states are supporting others? Ideally, every state would be equally efficient, but realistically they are not; no one is going to build a Manhattan in the Rockies. But could the more efficient states still benefit from subsidizing the less efficient ones? Ostensibly yes. For example: Minnesota and Washington both "pull their weight", but none of the states connecting them do. Still, the two benefit from having federally funded rail lines and highways between them, along with police, an educated populace, a number of national parks, etc.
All that said, "bridges to nowhere" greatly annoy me.
Re:Welfare States (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree...the states sending $$ into the Feds is the way that we have given too much power to the Feds, more than they were ever supposed to have.
Hell, the Feds take those funds, then use them as blackmail, to try to make the states pass national laws (ex. Hwy funds withheld unless drinking age moved to 21). If the states would stop sending in the monies...they would weaken the Feds, and they could better use their monies on their own people.
Re:Welfare States (Score:4, Insightful)
Your point is, in case you haven't realized it yet, that taxes based on income -- especially tiered brackets based on income -- are inherently unfair when levied equally against people in areas of entirely divergent costs of living.
When the average income in NY state is much higher than the average income in Montana, but only because the cost of living in NY State is equally higher, then the collection of a higher percentage of a New Yorker's income is inherently unfair.
The minimum deductions and itemized deductions mitigate this somewhat, but not to the point it's equal to a flat percentage tax. The minimum deduction actually favors the one with the lower income, even in areas where the lower income offers a better standard of living.
A flat tax would solve many of these issues. However, it would not solve the simple fact that roads and bridges which serve the entire country, especially the highly populated areas, run through lower populated areas. These roads need to be safe and effective in Missouri and Iowa as much as in California and New York. They are more heavily trafficked per the population in Missouri because of interstate trucking, but the goods mostly pass through to people in other states. The whole country helps pay for those roads because the whole country uses them, even if indirectly.
Federal taxes probably shouldn't pay for direct welfare distributions. The states should be required to do something about it that pleases a very small Federal oversight agency. That way, less money that's not paying for things the whole country uses would be paid for by the whole country.
Re:Welfare States (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently you've never driven in Chicago or Atlanta. ;-)
There are some things about cities that are inefficient, and some things that are efficient.
It's more efficient to operate light rail in a city, obviously. You need enough people close enough to the tracks and stations to make it worthwhile.
It's less efficient to drive a car. When I say "20 minutes by car", I might mean 15 or 20 miles in downstate Illinois or 3 to 5 miles in Chicago. I know people who work from 5 or 6 am to 2 or 3 pm instead of 8 to 5 because doing so cuts their commute from 2 hours to 45 minutes.
It's more efficient to run power and communications lines in a city when measured by miles of cable. It's more efficient when measured in labor and regulations per mile of cable to lay it in suburbs and small towns.
A big reason why taxes get distributed from areas of dense populations to areas of sparse population is that it is one country, and there's a network effect. A trip from New York to LA cannot be taken by road and rail without roads and rails being laid across the country. They cannot be interconnected with power on a national grid unless the grid is national in scope. Much of the food consumed in New York City and LA is not grown in New York State and California. The food has to get from farms to plates, and the farms in the South, Midwest, and Plains states have to have a way to ship.
Another reason is that the IRS is ordered by Congress to collect based on the same income scale across the entire country. The cost of living in a large city is higher (so much for overall efficiency) and therefore the incomes are higher. Since the incomes are higher, those people pay more in taxes. With a tiered income tax, they pay even more taxes.
Cities tend to build their own roads. The roads that connect cities are built by states and the Federal government. The roads that connect those roads to each other and that connect states are Federally funded as well. Areas that have roads running through them but which have few people are still a necessary part of the roadway network. That's a big part of Federal spending, and of course a four-lane highway in a state costs more per capita in a state with fewer people.
Re:Welfare States (Score:3, Insightful)
DC rips everybody off.
Words Mean Things (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's use some more precise words.
Remember, Conservatives want a big Federal government
anti-federalists (yeah, confusing term)
huge military
anti-constitutionalists
and constant wars
imperialists (or military industrialists)
and unchecked illegal immigration
slavers
1) the religious Conservatives see U.S. imperialism as a Holy War, and that we need to be Christianizing all the other countries
crusaders
2) not-as-religious Conservatives really believe that millions of Muslims want to hop on a boat, come over here, and invade somehow, and that our actions in the mideast are preventing complete takeover of our country by them
bullies (irrational cowards who impose preemptive force)
3) Conservative business owners like the low/nonexistent corporate taxes
this isn't true, so we'll skip it - e.g. Daimler-Chrysler moved its HQ to Germany for lower corporate taxes
generous corporate welfare (like subsidies for oil companies)
syndicalists
The question is: are these people really "Conservative"? That depends on your definition of the word. Whereas it meant something much more like libertarianism 30-50 years ago, it seems to have mutated into the above in the past 10-20 years.
Naw, these are green people calling themselves purple. If we re-define purple to mean green because green people are calling themselves purple, then we've lost the ability to describe both green and purple.
Conservatives are basically those resistant to change. In the case of the US that means they're closest to originalists, as they would oppose changes, both historical and present. So, Ron Paul is actually a conservative - his ideals are close to Madisonian. I disagree with him on some points as I'm more Jeffersonian, but there's enough common ground for me to support him. The design of the United States scares the hell out of all of the above types.
Re:Welfare States (Score:1, Insightful)
You also realize that the vast, vast majority of federal dollars go to things like roads and infrastructure, right?
You can divide Federal expenses into a few big buckets:
defense spending
payment on the national debt
direct transfer payments to individuals
administrative expenses
grants to states
State-centered "pork" is almost exclusively handled through grants (with some defense spending qualifying as state / congressional pork).
The Federal government doesn't have a choice about non-discretionary direct transfer payments like social security and welfare. Furthermore, it doesn't control where people choose to live. And for obvious reasons, people who retire tend to choose not to live in "blue" states like New York, New Jersey, or California because those are very expensive places for people to live on a fixed income.
Luckily, the US government publishes Federal expenditures on a state by state basis:
http://harvester.census.gov/cffr/asp/Geography.asp [census.gov]
So you can look it up yourself. Compare the grant money allocated to New York state vs the grant money allocated to Florida. This is an appropriate comparison because they are both Atlantic states, have about the same population, but one is a "blue" state while the other is a "red" state.
Guess who gets more? (Hint, it's not the "red" state). Now, New Yorkers have a higher per capita income than Floridians do, by about 25%. But they get a full 50% more in Federal grant money.
In other words, blue states aren't getting cheated and red states are not welfare states. It's just more leftist propoganda and lies from the resident /. commissar Doc Ruby.