California Passes Online Sales Tax Bill, Amazon Not Pleased

74

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

KenLV

FAMILIES earning about $375,000 or more - the top 1% of income earners in the US - now pay 40+% of all federal income tax collected.

Families earning $160,000 - $375,000 pay 20+% of all federal income tax collected.

These two groups represents the top 5% of US households and combined pay 60+% of all Federal income tax collected.  These numbers have been on a steady INCLINE for the last 30 years.  So when you say the we need “to cover the portion the extremely wealthy used to pay” that’s utter hogwash.

Families earning $115,000 - $160,000 pay 11% of federal income tax collected.

We’re now looking at the top 10% of US households and combined we pay 70+% of all Federal income tax and people still have the balls to say that THAT isn’t enough?  The “poor” are still paying too much!  For real?

“…This also eases the [burden] of taxes on the poor…”

49% of US households pay nothing - N-O-T-H-I-N-G,  not a fucking dime - in federal income tax, a number that’s been on a steady DECLINE (from the whopping 2% they USED to pay) for 30 years.  Yes, a DECLINE, even when those “evil, poor hating, racist, selfish, fucks”, you know, the Republicans, ran things.  Zero?  Really?  THAT is too much of a burden?  Fine then, how much LESS would you like them to pay?

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

When you make $12,000 a year and have two kids, what the fuck are you supposed to cough up for tax, Mr. Elitist Racist?

I hope fate knocks your ass off its high horse. Hard.

avatar

KenLV

Let’s get this out of the way, “racist”?  Wow, that didn’t take long.  But why?  Because you can?  OK.  As suspected, at least we know your fallback position when your argument falls to shit – and it does so pretty quickly.  Oh, I guess that was a “preemptive” strike?

And “elitist”?  I’m a first generation American; son of a teacher and bank teller.  Hardly born with a silver spoon in my mouth.  You don’t have to be rich to see what’s wrong with taking taking taking.

As to your “point” if there was one…

$12,000 and two kids?  First, who do you know who is earning just $5.75/hr?  Second, someone who can not earn enough to even support THEMSELVES should not be popping out a child, let alone 2.  Third, anyone in such a situation a) isn’t paying ANY income tax, are on food stamps and getting welfare, EIC, etc… there is so much money being flushed on the “war on poverty” that you could easily argue that the government is actually PAYING them to be irresponsible.  “BOO FUCKING HOO!”  Yes, cry me a fucking river.

“Yeah, we're supposed to feel sorry for someone when the government takes half of their $500 million personal income.”

How many people in the US do you think make $500 million a year that you can “take half”?  Well, since you’re clearly not interested in researching your spew before posting, I’ll tell you what I can.  Though I can’t tell you for certain the exact number, even you can count the number without using your toes.  For the record, the IRS reports that there are less than 75 household with earnings of more than $50 million in the US.  Come on, even “Democracy now” (not exactly the bastion of Conservatism) shows that just 74 people earned over $50 million.  Like I said, FAMILIES earning over $115,000 are already paying 70+% of income tax.  The ONLY people with an unlimited supply of money (because they keep fucking printing more making OURS worth less) is the FED.

Lastly, since you can’t seem to get the point, I didn’t say that ANYONE (including the poor) should “cough up” more, we’re saying that the government should be SPENDING LESS.  Get it?

avatar

KenLV

Speaking of false calls of racism, coincidentally this was literally just sent to me. It’s humorous look at a serious subject…

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/30/andrew-klavan-why-do-blacks-vote-for-democrats/

avatar

Ghok

That'd be a great response if I was talking soley about income tax. Or what percentage of families earning various incomes were paying in income tax over the last 30 years. But that's far more specific than I was ever talking about. I know they're impressive sounding statistics, but you can't fit them into everything. It's easy to make numbers work for you. Just like how CaptainFabulous is doing below, but making them work towards the opposite opinion.

I think his numbers are a little more relevant, but fully admit I'm probably a bit biased.

Anyway, taxation is harder on those with less money. That's all I was trying to say. If the ultra rich pay a larger percentage than everyone else, everyone else has to pay less. I think this is good way to stimulate the economy. That is all. Not all agree. Economies are complicated things.

And yes, given the amount of wealth were talking about in that top 1%, I don't think the amount of income tax paid is unreasonable. The trade off there is pretty good.

(I also never mentioned anything about any Republicans, nor has any one else who has posted responses to this article.)

avatar

KenLV

“That'd be a great response if I was talking [solely] about income tax. … But that's far more specific than I was ever talking about.”

First, that’s the big problem though: generalities.  Everyone talks about things in general terms when the reality lies in the specifics.

Now, since you referred to it, with respect to the corporate taxes that Fabulous is talking about, I actually partially agree with that.  Treating his cronies at GE different than the rest of corporate America and then putting that clown Immelt, who can’t run his company for shit if it weren’t for these subsidies and loopholes created specifically for them, is pathetic (FYI before the haters chime in, I also despise it when Republicans play cronyism too and a simplified tax code is so desperately needed).  However, let’s be clear here, the “Profit” that corporations earn and are taxed on is the money that stays IN the corporation at the end of the year.  It’s what’s left AFTER they pay all the salaries, capital expenditures, leases, etc…  In reality, it (or what’s left of it after taxes) is their working capital for the NEXT year.  All the money paid out to actual people IS taxed.  Now, you can, as some do, argue that they are “hording” that money within the company - and right now, you’d be partially correct.  They are so shit-stained scared about an uncertain future that changes at the whim of unelected “appointees” that they have to have a larger than normal cushion.

As to the 15% tax rate number.  That depends.  If he is referring to the “carried interest” loophole that hedge fund managers take advantage of, you bet.  Get rid of it.  BUT keep in mind that BOTH Democrats and Republicans killed the bill to fix it in the Senate in 2007.  However, if he is talking about the 15% tax on equity gains, no, increasing tax on INVESTMENT to 35% is a bad idea all around.  Who is going to take the risk of investing when after the risk has been taken Uncle Sam takes more than a third of your profit?

Anyway, back to my points, the issue is, and has been for 50 years, that spending is increasing at a greater rate than revenue generation.  Federal revenue has been on a steady incline for the last 50 years all the way through 2000 and then had a sharp decline from 2001 (something happened then to shatter the markets) through 2003 and then rebounded (just one example: 2003 Bush tax cuts resulted in a DOUBLING of the capital gains tax revenue from 2003 to 2007) until the recession in 2007 dropping and then flat from 2008 through the present.  Even though revenue has more than tripled during those 50 years, SPENDING has now nearly SEXTUPLED!  How is that a “revenue problem”?

“If the ultra rich pay a larger percentage than everyone else, everyone else has to pay less.”

a) they already pay a larger percentage and b) No, not “everyone” pays less, because, as I stated, 49% of households ALREADY pay nothing. c) this is completely false, tax revenues DO NOT correlate with tax rates, they correlate with economic growth.  Tax revenue has always increased with increased GDP.  And revenue has been at its HIGHEST, as a percentage of the GDP, when the top rate was the LOWEST.  So raising the rate on the “ultra rich” does not in fact increase revenue, but instead slows economic growth.  D) the Bush tax CUTS actually shifted a greater burden of the tax liability TO the “rich” FROM the “poor”.

avatar

kris79

Taxation is harder on those with less money as a percentage of their total income. A loaf of bread still costs $3 at Whole Foods whether you make $5k or $5,000k. It matters more  the the former. It's naive to think that politicians will lower taxes on the middle class because they can get more from the rich. Instead they spend it like more revenue. Those who identify our financial crises as a spending problem are correct. This new tax will impact everyone more than you think. Those clever lawyers for the state can now tax a burgeoning class of purchases that will affect everyone who buys online. The vast majority of those are not the rich. Not only that, they can tax folks throughout the country who live in lower or even a no tax state at CA tax rates! Whoa! When I look at the bottom line, the increased cost to me buying something from CA may make me purchase it somewhere else and reducing income to the residents of that state. Nice going politicians! Rather than focus on the rich, why doesn't everyone start thinking of your own pockets and how much less you will have at the end of the year as a result of this money grab. And start fighting back! Amazon does.

When you make money, they tax you. When you spend the same money, they tax you. When you make something, they tax you. When you use something, they tax you. When you have property, they tax you. When you die, they even tax you. And so on, and so on...

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

Yeah, we're supposed to feel sorry for someone when the government takes half of their $500 million personal income. Oh, boo fucking hoo---now they only have $250 million! How ever will they survive?

BOO FUCKING HOO!

avatar

kris79

Sounds like you could use a little more sensitivity training, Sweetness.

avatar

CaptainFabulous

States are very limited in what they can do in terms of sales tax collection. Both the Commerce Clause and 14th Amendment prohibit states from collecting taxes on interstate purchases unless the retailer has a presence in the state. These new laws simply redefine affiliates as a "presence", which is why Amazon and Overstock can easily shut down their affiliates and not have to deal with it.

Changing these rules would require a Constitutional amendment, something that's very unlikely to ever happen. Sorry states, but you're gonna have to look elsewhere for cash. Try some of your billionaires and billion-dollar corporations. I hear they're having a banner year.

avatar

Pinkyblister

I bet that California would have a lot more funds available for it's needs if they would deport their illegal immigrant population.  We need to take care of our own citizens first, and money is tight.  I cannot believe that more people are not in agreement with this position.  It is only common sense.

 

Good for Amazon-keep the internet as tax-free as possible!

The government does not tax too little-they spend too much...

 

 

avatar

bpstone

Any other country they would have been jailed or shot crossing the border... literally. Here in America on the other hand, we are  patting criminals on the back and giving them benefits. You want to give someone who entered the country illegally healthcare, yet a man who is suffering has to rob a bank of one dollar to get the help he needs. Yea, doesn't make a lot of sense does it.

avatar

lindethier

I like how there are some scholarships that ONLY illegal aliens are eligible for...

avatar

Robert S

Saying something is "common sense" means you have no hard evidence to support your position and feel you do need it because, well, its just common sense. Not sticking your head in the microwave is common sense, nothing involving politics is common sense.

avatar

Ghok

Huh? Because rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants would be cheap?

avatar

sallystudios

Really? This is tax that you legally owe no matter what.

 

Just remember, you have to make money to pay taxes.

avatar

CaptainFabulous

I'm sorry, but when a corporation posts a 35 BILLION dollar profit, has a 0% tax liability, and gets another 4 BILLION in tax refunds then yes, the government is not taxing them enough.

When millionaires and billionaires are paying 15% tax on their money while most Americans are paying 20-33% then yes, the government is not taxing them enough.

avatar

US_Ranger

 

Amazon charges sales tax in states where they have a prescence. 

avatar

TerribleToaster

"Amazon collects sales tax from just five states. Amazon is under increasing legal and political pressure from state governments, traditional retailers and other groups because of its refusal to collect sales tax in 40 of the 45 states with a statewide sales tax (as of May, 2011). Those 40 states include at least 12 where Amazon has a clear physical presence via distribution centers and wholly owned subsidiaries. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com#Sales_and_use_taxes

avatar

CaptainFabulous

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Amazon collects sales taxes in the states it's required to. If it didn't those states would be filing lawsuits to compel them to do so, and they'd be in a ton of hot water.

These new state laws are trying to coerce Amazon and others to collect sales taxes in states they are NOT otherwise required to do so. Amazon is will within their right to terminate any affiliations in that state in order to avoid that requirement.

They had planned on opening a new distribution center in Texas until they passed a similar law. The plans for the center were scrapped because of it. Thousands of jobs lost.

avatar

TerribleToaster

 

"Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Amazon collects sales taxes in the states it's required to."

http://www.amiba.net/resources/news-archive/amazon-nexus-subsidiaries

Here is a list of Amazon facilities. It is noted where there is a state wide sales tax and where they pay it. 

 

"If it didn't those states would be filing lawsuits to compel them to do so, and they'd be in a ton of hot water."

You mean like they are right now in various states?

 

"These new state laws are trying to coerce Amazon and others to collect sales taxes in states they are NOT otherwise required to do so."

There really haven't been any "new laws". The laws are/were there, what's being argued is if they apply, and if they apply, how would we change them?

 

"Amazon is will within their right to terminate any affiliations in that state in order to avoid that requirement."

Not saying they don't have to right to shut down business. Don't think anyone has argued that.

 

"They had planned on opening a new distribution center in Texas until they passed a similar law. The plans for the center were scrapped because of it."

Actually, Amazon already had a Distribution Center in Texas (it was not a planned new center, it was long since built and there). What was planned was to hire 1,000 more employees and expand the existing center. It was also not new that Texas had a state wide sales tax. Amazon simply wasn't paying it because they said they didn't need to. The state realized they weren't paying and sent them a bill, thus the "hot water" started. The center was then shut down by Amazon.

 

"Thousands of jobs lost."

The state of Texas loses about 600 million in tax revenue a year to untaxed internet sales. You can make a lot of jobs with that kind of money.

 

avatar

Carlidan

Why do we always blame someone else for our economic downfall? For your information, we built our country on the backs of "illegals".

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

Funny how there was more than enough tax dollars available to bail out Wall Street.

avatar

avenger48

I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with anything.  Those were federal dollars, not state, and no, there weren't enough.  That (among other reasons) why we have a $15 Trillion deficit right now.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.