Why We Should Want Amazon to Lose Its Tax Fight

[This commentary drew such a heavy response Monday in the Rick’s Picks forum — 60 posts so far — that I am letting it run for a second day. RA]

We lean strongly libertarian on the issues of the day, especially when debating those who would raise taxes to feed the insatiable maw of Government. So why are we rooting for the revenuers in their battle to squeeze more tribute from the customers of retail giant Amazon?  That’s right: We’re hoping the company loses its knock-down, drag-out battle to avoid collecting taxes for cash-strapped states, even if it means online shoppers will ultimately pay billions more for their purchases.  The states want Amazon to collect and remit taxes wherever the company sells merchandise and irrespective of whether it has a physical presence where the sales are conducted. In the long run, we would argue, it will be better for consumers to go along with this than letting them continue to buy untaxed goods online.  In the end, leveling the retail playing field between virtual and brick-and-mortar sellers in this way will help avert the day when Amazon and other globally scaled sellers have driven most of their brick-and-mortar competitors into the ground.

Such an outcome may be more likely than shoppers might care to imagine, as the chart of Best Buy (below) suggests. Shares of the big-box purveyor of consumer electronics, computers and appliances have fallen by half since last November, when they traded for as much as $45, and recently touched a three-year low of $22 on weak earnings.  To be sure, the Great Recession has played a significant role in the collapse of Best Buy’s once high-flying stock. But with the firm’s release of dismal sales figures for Q2, analysts have begun to question whether the retailer is becoming just a showroom for customers planning to do their buying online.

We must confess to abetting this trend ourselves recently, having purchased a Sony digital camera online after visiting some local retailers to try it out. Store prices ranged from $289 to $410, plus sales taxes that would have added as much as $28 to the camera’s cost. Weigh that against Amazon’s deal – $279, no tax, and free shipping — and the decision to purchase online was a no-brainer. Who can resist such bargains?  Although we try to buy most of our books from independent local sellers, paying a few dollars more than at Amazon to help keep them alive, it’s more difficult to rationalize buying big-ticket items such as cameras and computers locally when online prices are so much lower, as is often the case.

The Wal-Mart Effect

But isn’t this what killed Main Street?  Shoppers flocked to Wal-Mart looking for low prices, eventually driving small retailers out of business in towns all across America. Now an even bigger predator, Amazon, threatens to do the same thing to big-box operators, leaving gaping holes in shopping malls that may never be filled. If an aggressive, savvy operator like Best Buy cannot pay the rent, then who can? Even department stores, which still attract shoppers who want to try on shoes and clothes, and to sample cosmetics, are not drawing enough traffic to survive. This is conjectural on our part, but stores in general, most particularly department stores, seem nowhere near as busy as we remember them during our childhood.  In fact, the only stores that appear to be drawing crowds of buyers are Apple’s phenomenally success retail outlets and cell-phone stores.  Hardware, jewelry and sporting goods stores are somewhat of an exception, since their customers frequently require knowledgeable help. But competition is brutal in these areas, and if the glut of such stores here in Boulder is typical for towns of comparable size, then many of the stores are fated to die as The Great Recession deepens. Their demise will only be hastened if world-killing competitors like Amazon are allowed to sell their wares tax-free to customers.

***

 

(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

  • ebear September 24, 2011, 12:41 pm

    Yeah, shopping sure ain’t what it used to be….
    http://tinyurl.com/6g3ncy

  • mava September 21, 2011, 4:57 pm

    Robert,

    Thank you, but I am sure you are overestimating me. If there is anything good in my rambling, then it is only due to books by overwhelmingly English, German and American authors I have had access to in USA. In Russia, AFAIK, no one even discusses freedom and capital, and standard prior research such as Rothbard, Mises, Jefferson or even North or Reisman is not translated.

    Anyway, the part that you have mention, there is more to bring to discussion table. I think I might be able to offer a way to think of property rights vs. nature. Incidentally, it was the part I struggled with myself as well. You’re right it is counterintuitive.

    However, I am surely have inundated the folks with longer than necessary posts, and I, myself don’t have a coherent thought as of now, the way it should be if I was going to try to relay it to someone else. We will discuss it later, as I am sure the topic will come up again.

  • mava September 21, 2011, 4:43 pm

    Rick,

    Unfortunately, I think you’re right when you say it is likely too late. After so many years of propaganda, not to many would agree to go back to the way America was.

    Just saddens me though. Here we have The Only experiment with freedom that was damaged but is not completely gone yet. Sad to see it going. I meant so much to me, but turned out to be only a rumor of a glorious past.

  • George September 20, 2011, 10:20 pm

    Taxing Amazon will level the playing field but if millions billions more are extracted from struggling consumers, how long before purchases are cut back even more?

    • mava September 21, 2011, 5:06 pm

      The idea is that consumers will keep buying whatever necessary no matter how much it costs. Thus the theory says the taxes could be raised indefinitely, even past the amount of total incomes.

      It started in 17th century with an opinion that rich take profit “beyond necessary” (I don’t know what that means), and therefore a lot could be extracted from the rich if they only could be pushed to where they have no choice.

      Overtime, the communists forgot the origin of the premise, and it become what it is today.

      Of course the consumption is going to fall more, and to the extent that it continues, even more wealth will be redirected for waste than before (additional revenue from Amazon).

      We are following the footprint of every bankruptcy collapse (such as Rome) precisely.

  • mava September 20, 2011, 9:56 pm

    SCARCITY

    Scarcity is the reason for property rights. Take away the property rights and scarcity will show itself in full force. Add property rights and scarcity disappears, giving place to abundance.

    This is hard to grasp. All too often we fall into thinking that the way to fight scarcity is to share resources.

    Look at the USSR. Barren, wasted landscape. Oil spills covering hundreds of square miles. Junk and rusted metal in every ditch. You know what happens with

    lead acid batteries in USSR? Children play with them, messing with acid and melting the led into their toys, with which they play. Because those batteries are everywhere.

    Do you think Russians are just dirty, stupid people? I guarantee you that the more you attack private property, the more your own land will look like that.

    The reason is a simple math. If I don’t own the land, then it makes sense for me to simply exploit it until I find a better piece to exploit. If I own it, on the other hand, then the sale price will be equal purchase price minus whatever resource I have already consumed. Therefore it makes sense to improve rather than destroy.

    Place two people on an oil reservoir and they will burn it as fast as possible. Split it into halves, and give in private property and it will last them a whole lot longer.

    So, if we are running out of something today, this is definitely because it is not in private ownership.

    Private ownership, paradoxically, makes you pay for what you consume. If I own a brick of gold, the only way you will catch me using it is by making sure it does something productive, so as to increase my wealth, where I can actually replace that brick with another, new brick of gold.

    Same goes for land, grass, electricity, every resource conceivable. All together, we are conserving our resources, if we own them privately. This is true conservation, true renewable use.

    There are those amongst us, who only like to consume and waste. The whole point of private property is to DENY them any access to resources! They buy, say, land, and cover it in oil spill. Now, they can not rent or sell it without taking a loss, so, eventually, they are incapable of making any claim on resource due to all of their capital being wasted, and they go live in a carton box, where they belong. Thus, we safeguard our resources from those who have negative efficiency. Through freedom and free trade (I am not referring to the abomination the
    government calls “free trade”), we insure that our resources are always in abundance.

    Those who talk about recycling, renewables, sustainability (there is no word play here, I do not refer to you Robert by this – I mean the collectivistas-hippie-greens), without insuring total private property rights, are actually well on their way to destroy the little that is available today.

    Their coefficient of performance is negative, and they are the creators of waste. Those who save water, turn off lights, read from recycled toiled paper, separate their garbage, are creating waste as they speak of savings.

    Further, to suggest that I supposed to be taxed, because I am using a resource, and that this is supposed to save us resources, flies in the face of private property concept.

    To be able to extract a rent from a resource, I must first own it. Government is not the owner, nor is anyone else who not owning it now. Resources do not belong to just everybody, they are not any kind of national treasure, they belong to individuals who own them free and clear and no one else. To suggest a possibility of the opposite is to accept the socialist approach that has shown itself to be a total failure not only theoretically, but also every time it has been tried.

    How about I tax you on that car you just bought? What? I don’t care who taxes you already, I want to tax you since you just denied me of it’s use by the virtue of buying it for yourself! What? I have no right? Well, if I don’t have the right, then I certainly could not have delegated that right to the f*ing government, could I? (borrowed from Jefferson).

    Then, who gave the government a private property rights, on which they are now placing rents (taxes)? Since they have not purchased anything, since governments are pure waste and never create anything, since they produce nothing beneficial but only sorrow and theft, since they are not a person and therefore were not endowed with any rights whatsoever, they can not possibly be in the position to collect any rents on anything.

    Oh, but they do. And this is where we come to understand why it is all theft. Because, the governments always insist that the rents collected (taxes) are for this or that use. They do it intentionally, so as to misdirect our attention.

    If we start thinking about the use, we forget about the right that should exist before any use can commence. Governments, as I explained above, have ZERO rights to collect anything at all, since they hold nothing in their private property. No one could have delegated those rights to them either. This is the second thing that defines taxes as theft.

    Every time I take from you something that I have no right to take, we call it theft. Government does nothing else, but steals, since every day it commands something it has no right to control.

    • Rick Ackerman September 21, 2011, 12:00 am

      A powerful, eloquent argument, Mava, but the last time Americans would have been receptive to such anarchistic ideas, elemental though they be, was when we still paid for things with St. Gaudens coins.

    • Robert September 21, 2011, 4:00 am

      Very fascinating reads, Mava, and well articulated opinion. I think your history in the USSR has granted you a wisdom others should covet.

      But, on the other hand, I can’t completely grasp the concept of non-renewable capital resources as private property, any more than I can grasp the concept that the Rothschild family has already purchased the entire planet from God.

      There is simply no such concept as “ownership” anywhere in the natural world (excepting the fact that no two hermit crabs will occupy the same snail shell concurrently).

      I do agree whole heartedly that people care more completely and diligently for property they own than they do when they see themselves (and behave) as tenants.

      Still, in the end, our only real “property” are our inalienable rights. Our estates will always be the spoils of personal conquest.

  • mava September 20, 2011, 9:51 pm

    BIG BOX RETAILERS, LOCAL SHOPS, ETC.

    Say I need a screw (fastener), now. I would much rather visit a local store and get it there than buying over internet. Luckily, in this area my need is congruent with the needs of many more people and together, we pay enough profit for someone to keep the shelves stoked, awaiting for such need.

    But, say I need a book “Dogs Can Sign Too”. It is not carried by any of the local book stores! O horror!
    Do you people realize what you have done?! In your selfishness, you did not instruct the government to create a “level playing field” for someone willing to
    stock the book for me locally. Surely, all of you now neeed to be forced to render taxes (some of you millions of dollars), to level that field to satisfy that little me-me-me inside me.

    Wouldn’t our country be more beautiful if those books were available for me to casually walk in and read few pages at the table before deciding to buy?

    That would be a quaint place to live!

    Of course, none of you truly care for what I “need” for real (but only may-be for what you think I need). Asking you to level the field would not only be immoral, but would also create a drain on economy as valuable resources would be wasted (not paid for).

    I hate local stores (mostly). They have this aweful habit of sending a nagging $7/hr dumbass sales person to insult me ever time I step into the store. As if I am incapable of making my own guesses, choices, decisions, they are calling it “help”, but the funny thing is, I did not ask for any help, and surely I can be presumed to know how to ask. This is why I don’t feel any sympathy for the long suffering local brick and mortar retailer. But this is only a private opinion.

    There was a time, when a dumbass $7/hr was actually a store of knowledge in himself, a valuable shopping companion, a wise and experience advisor, and an expert on social skills to boot.

    He is gone. We can not pay him enough to concentrate on being a soft speaking wizard, or , conversely, $7/hr isn’t enough these days. We have made an exchange. We traded him for the NASA, for the drones we use to kill people we don’t know, for the insane money to useless public teachers, for a government’s thug awesome retirement package, for that trillion of dollars that Rumsfield can not seem to trace (Sept 10, 2001), for the inflation of our dollar to pay for the houses of all those who were brilliant flippers just yesterday right in our face laughing at our “old mannerism” and inability to “utilize” the bull markets. Part of him was spent on all the trillion of forceful wealth-waste projects to satisfy the little me-me-me-s of those not willing to learn a valuable skill to satisfy someone else’s need.

    With him, now gone is our quaint town. we have exchanged it for an LCD screen where we shop, because having wasted so much wealth we are now FORCED ourselves to absolute razor edge of efficiency, every penny matters! So, now we buy Chinese, while still, openly “loving” American. We have sold it all, all the
    skilled workers, all the knowledgeable and tactful sales people, the family doctor, the honest mechanic, both of our neighbor boys to defending Israelis from Iraqis, it is all gone. Penny counting is now our fate.

    Hey, at least we have all those loving 300lbs welfare queens and a whole lot of government! This is the result of forcing our me-me-me-s on others through taxes. As mises predicted in “Socialism”, when no one has to pay the full price, there is no way to determine what should and what should not be done, and as a result, a bankruptcy collapse is inevitable.

    Now we get to look back at the ugly face of what we thought we really want. Enjoy.

  • mava September 20, 2011, 9:45 pm

    SERVICES

    I do not object to any of the services people need, be it schools, roads, food stamps, public healthcare or even NASA. Just as I emply a gardener, and pay for the services rendered, so should everyone else pay for what they need and want.

    I don’t particularly care if your child receives any education, or if you have an insurance, nor do I ask you to care if I get those things. Please, don’t assume my unstated needs. All I ask is for you to mind your own busines, and for me to mind mine. As long as I am not asked to pay for

    things I don’t need, what possible argument can I have if you pay for and use a school, insurance, welfare, a road?

    Yes, it is entirely possible for you to PRETEND that I care, say, for your child education, and force me to pay. Whatever the excuse you wish to bring forward, the openly stated truth is that I don’t, and all the ill-gained benefits that you may aquire by forcing me to suit your desires, you can

    be sure will result in destruction of what you love, for ends do not justify the means.

    If you honestly disagree, notice I said HONESTLY, then just drop the lies about how I don’t know my needs, and just go ahead with “public good”, on building the forth reich, Simply enslave someone and that would serve your needs and those of your progeny. At least Germans did it honestly. Making the enslavement small, insignificant, “mutually-beneficient” (cleverly omit the essence of mutual here – free trade), enviromently friendly, insert your favorite excuse – only serves to modify the time delay of the process and the degree of perversion in society (as perversion is a truth, not allowed to be declared openly).

    In short, unless you are honstly advocation slavery without any excuses and lies, then there is zero benefit in any socialist principles.

    Socialist organisation should be used for what it is intended for – those instances where we LOVE someone or something unconditionally, as in helping ones child or parent, a sibling, a loved one, or even paying for an expencive surgery for your useless dog, – i.e. where you will willingly take a hit for the benefit of someone else. There is no need of taxation or government if this is your goal. Simply go out and do what your heart is telling you to do, without requiring others to pretend that they care.

    I do. Those are my “loves”, and they are no one else business.

  • mava September 20, 2011, 9:42 pm

    TAXES

    All taxes are theft. One reason this is so is because no tax is collected on the basis of free echange, as in trade. Taxes are simply forced on everyone (or only on some, in communist societies), and there are no provable market justifications for their existence. (also see in last post)

    No service deserves taxes, ever. Again, this is because a
    person might not desire a service. Moreover, the beneficiary of a service is usually NOT the payer of the tax. Services should be provided for a fee, not tax. Want to use library? Pay fee, road – pay fee, etc. Don’t want to use it? Nothing to pay. I don’t need NASA, public schools, public roads, food stamps, etc. I still pay for all that through violent extraction on behalf of the people who want to pay less for what they need, by pretending that I need it too. Taxes, therefore are theft.

    Granted, it is a side effect of public services, but nevertheless, taxes give birth to most efficient wealth
    destruction mechanism known to men – government parasite. Just look at Obama for an excellent sample of a parasite. A man lives in most luxurious conditions known to men, yet, he hasn’t produced as much as a pickled cucumber for the people in his entire life. The difference between what he should have been in free market capitalism – living out of carton box on the sidewalk – and what he is in socialist system utilizing taxation, is the wealth that was produced by those interested in serving others, and that is now forever lost.

    Should I mention war, as that too, is largely if not
    completely possible due to the theft by taxes?

  • James J. September 20, 2011, 3:15 pm

    Rick your a great commentator, and on most issues I’m with you. On this we part ways. Amazon has come up with great, profitable business model and should be rewarded for that NOT punished. Jut like Dell
    changed the way computers were sold in the late 1990’s and left their competition, namely Compaq, in the dust. we move onward to better systems and more consumer choices, that’s the way it should be. If the zombie banks had been left to go bankrupt and the ones’ that were doing it right and stepped up like they should have, we’d probably be out of the financial mess by now, and much better off for it.

    Amazon advantages are it’s prices, service, and choices it gives consumers. Internet companies have the added costs shipping charges, logistics, and shipping and packing operations that Big Box retailers don’t have. The tax breaks are negligible when compared to overall costs, it’s a sham, because Wal Mart and Best Buys either don’t want to, or cannot compete on price they want the government to step in, it’s wrong, we should be getting the government out of the business of picking winners and losers, Solyndra is a good lesson in how they muck it up.

    Big Box retailers won’t disappear, they may evolve and that’s good. Get with it, the world is mobile and global, people are on the move shopping from iPhones, the Internet, and Big retailers. the largest economy in the world can accommodate both — Libertarians have to move out the 17th century.

    • Benjamin September 20, 2011, 6:43 pm

      The problem many people here (and elsewhere) have is that they view the idea of Amazon collecting sales tax as “uncapitalistic”. This is not a valid criticism, though. First, Amazon would in no way be “punished” in having to collect sales tax. Nor is the money collected going to be used to support the big fat dinosaur of a failure that is old-fashioned retail.

      But the irony is, even if Amazon were great enough to squash all or most competition, they would only end up in the position of having to collect sales tax anyway. Sales tax is not going to go die in the 17th century or 21st because it’s one the few legit means of generating revenue that state governments have at their disposal.

    • Rick Ackerman September 20, 2011, 11:39 pm

      I’ve got a great, profitable business model myself, but I’m not advocating that my success be considered a legal reason for not having to paying taxes.

      Regarding the evolution of big-box stores, that is not what is occurring. In plain fact, they are dying one by one. Best Buy is arguably among the most robust big-box operators left, but even it appears to be entering a death spiral, increasingly a showroom for Amazon.

  • Avocado September 20, 2011, 2:07 pm

    Rick,

    I wonder when reality will overcome rhetoric? I hear the Repubs and others telling me taxing anyone over $200K will effect jobs and those who create jobs, but the facts belie that. Less than 2% of small business owners make more than $200K.

    I invest in penny stocks that are growing and hiring new employees. None of the CEO’s make over $100K, if that.

    So when do we get a dose of reality in these discussions? Or will we ever? I don’t get any of that from Washington, they just keep repeating the same stale mantra over and over.

    Don’t confuse me with the facts, [voter] my mind’s made up!

    Andy

  • arthur davies September 20, 2011, 6:49 am

    Why do we need big box stores, more malls? Everywhere you turn there’s a mall, replacing nature. Destroy everything, destroying animal wild life, water supply, scenery and increasing CO2 emission instead of absorption. Amazon no tax benefits will help, reduce harmful effects that are done with big box stores, destroying beautiful landscapes is no longer needed.

  • Brian September 20, 2011, 6:43 am

    I will have to disagree with you on this one Rick. Libertarianism is not the answer. The founding fathers placed into existence the best government possible for humans: a constitutional republic. They would roll over in their graves to see what our present government(s) were doing. Companies like Amazon and others like it started their business when state governments were poo pooing small computers and especially the internet. I know, I was there when that age started. The state was not there to help them as they struggled to build their business and neither was Best Buy. They worked their belief and built a great business. Now the state wants to come along and take a “piece of the action” for no work at all. Sales tax rates in Colorado can exceed 9%.

    Yes, there are times one would want to buy locally for good customer service but at other times buying product online is better, as you well know. The sales tax law for out of state sales was unconstitutional as has been shown in court. The state of Colorado tried to pressure Amazon to fork over and they held their ground. Applause for them!

  • John Jay September 20, 2011, 12:47 am

    Rick,
    Re USPS retirement payments.
    There is no need to default on any government pension plan. Just pay it off in increasingly worthless dollars.
    Inflation in food and energy costs will eat it all up, especially back east where my brother has $500 electric bills in the summer and $500 heating bills in the winter.
    Add in property taxes, and if he and his wife were not making good money, they’d be in big trouble.
    As I have argued before, you might get a couple of flash mob type protests, but the average Joe will just quietly live in a tent or his car, and blame himself for not being a millionaire. The only poor people portrayed in MSM shows are always buffoons a la Al Bundy, Homer Simpson, Fred Sanford. The poor, but honest and wise frontiersman like Davy Crockett went out of fashion a looooong time ago. Lets see what the blowback is when Greece defaults, hopefully more money goes to the Dollar so our Ponzi scheme is the last one to fall.

    • Steve September 20, 2011, 4:54 am

      Never forget that Col. Crockett was a military man and a legislator. As a legislator he said that the Federal Government has no powers to give money to private persons and business and that that abuse would be the root of our destruction. That makes FEMA, the bailouts, GM et.al. the problem not a solution. Or should I say that an out of control legislature taking our money and using it without authority for private persons and businesses is the problem.

  • roger erickson September 20, 2011, 12:16 am

    There’s a deeper issue at stake here, and better ways to solve it.

    What do states need our national fiat currency for? To provide services the public believes in.

    Why does any sub-group of a fiat currency issuer have to tax fiat in order to get fiat? What the hell is wrong with this picture.
    Yes, there’s a need to keep circulating currency supplies within DISTRIBUTED tolerance limits. [Note that it doesn’t matter, functionally, how much is supposedly issued, if the public lets an Upper Looting Class uselessly hoard 90% of it!]

    The whole purpose of a unit of account in an organized population is to lower the real-cost-burden of supporting the quality of distributed decision-making, which in turn shows up as our pattern of distributed transactions denominated in fiat numbers.

    Simple solution is to have the fiat currency issuer provide enough per-capita fiat currency so that local municipalities needn’t always chase citizens to scavenge whatever amounts of fiat currency the national municipality left them with after national taxes.
    Again, what the hell is wrong with this picture?

    Anyone arguing about the degree of fiat currency citizens end up fighting over (local taxes) has already divided & fallen, lock, stock & barrel for the BS the banking lobby peddles.

    Has more than a few EVER woken up to the fact that the following statement is simply true? It doesn’t get much simpler than this. Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Marriner Eccles, Beardsley Ruml & Warren Mosler were ALL right. We’re acting like sheep, divided & conveniently conquered.

    Beardsley Ruml, NY Fed, 1946
    “Taxes for revenue are obsolete.”
    http://www.curiousevidence.com/(S(sloisla20uoxea0olchsyjub))/samples.aspx?id=21

  • Steve September 19, 2011, 9:28 pm

    USPS employee is not a government employee like the Post Master and Post Office is. That is according to my source in the postal service who said his check does not come from the Federal Government.

    • Robert September 19, 2011, 11:09 pm

      If your source in the Postal Service spends their time delivering mail, then correct- their paycheck is most likely issued by an independent Gov’t subcontractor.

    • Steve September 19, 2011, 11:30 pm

      Source worked the front counter when I gave him heck about triple dipping as a disabled Nam vet, SSA security taker, and a Postal Worker. He said no way – his check came from a private corporation. Trust the guy because he got one check from Treasury, but have not spent the time to research the reality.

  • John Jay September 19, 2011, 8:59 pm

    Rick,
    What Amazon is doing to Big Box retailers is just the latest domino in what has been going on for decades.
    When I was a very little boy, I remember our corner grocer going out of business because the new A+P was selling groceries for less that he could get them at his wholesale price. TPTB have consolidated wealth and power by all this as it worked through manufacturing facilities and jobs. As fallingman expalined above, it is all over now. Amazon probably has the edge even without the sales tax question since they don’t have the shoplifting expense and the need for fancy displays and furniture and fixtures. Distribution warehouses are not air conditioned or heated either. USPS is doomed too, which will start the cascade of the end of the artificial middle class of overpaid government employees, which includes the MIC bunch among others on the dole. It is the endgame of spreading the poverty around in the USA.
    Death rattle comes to mind as the last few sources of old style jobs dry up.

    • Rick Ackerman September 19, 2011, 9:36 pm

      With Wisconsin’s recent torch parties in mind, should we expect riots if the Government, for reasons of affordability, reneges on postal employees’ retirement benefits?

  • Benjamin September 19, 2011, 8:40 pm

    Rick Ackerman said: “No one so far has addressed my point that AMZN has the ability to destroy big box retailers just as Wal-Mart destroyed Main Street retailers.”

    I’ve never understood the whole Walmart phenomenon. It’s to my understanding that any manufacturer that would sell goods at their stores had their arm twisted to bring their production costs down by a certain percentage which Walmart considered their “sweet spot”. Naturally, Walmart pushed this to the extent that manufacturers left for foreign shores and cheaper labor, so as to allow Walmart their continued price reductions. How Walmart accquired that kind of clout, though, I can only make general guesses. Some say the original store’s founder would not be happy with what his creation has become. I suppose that means Walmart stores were infiltrated and run by under-handed and short-sighted opportunists. It works.

    But a more academic view, one held and promoted by Antal Fekete, says that it was the demonitization of gold and the resulting abandonment of real bills (of exchange). With the abandonment of real bills of exchange, the necessary and self-liquidating credit was no longer available to producers and retailers. This of course forced them to increasingly rely on the credit systems we have and know today, which can only, in time, push everyone out via the intense strain of certain and escalating default. And you know the saying… The bigger they are, the harder they are to squeeze and POP!

    For anyone interested, Professor Fekete has written numerous essays on fiat currency, Gold, and Real Bills. These are well worth reading and can be found here…

    http://www.professorfekete.com/articles.asp

    For a quick intro on real bills…

    http://www.professorfekete.com/articles/AEFRealBillsRevisitedPositionPaper4.pdf

  • buck novak September 19, 2011, 7:32 pm

    I have a better idea. Why not reduce the sales tax to zero. I am tired that if I want to buy something some lazy government worker gets a cut so I can purchase. When I have a bad year you think the lazy government workers give a rats you know what about my budget. I have a choice if I want to purchase or not. I go out of my way to avoid sales tax. Sales tax are a disincentive to purchase. Why should the government and government workers have a monopoly on the rate of tax for their benefit? I have not seen the government decide their sales tax are too high. The government and government workers always need more. What is fair that I should pay more to the government. What has the government done for me? Nothing except tax me. Who wrote up all this debt and now wants someone else pay for it? I will tell you who, the government. Let’s get rid of e-mail so we can save the Post Office and the Postal Workers cushy jobs. Let’s get rid of farm tractors and return to horses for farming then we can employ more people and have higher food prices and less of it. How many government workers are saying we are overpaid and the taxpayers are overtaxed? None that I know. Instead government workers want other people’s wealth and wealth creativity for themselves and alway say WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN OR WHAT ABOUT THE SERVICES. My response is STARVE THE BEAST.

  • Ronald September 19, 2011, 7:08 pm

    Rick, How could you miss the obvious solution? Simply eliminate state, county and city sales tax. Without this, Best Buy; et al, will compete on a level playing field. Whatever this sales tax loot was used to fund can be, of course you will agree, better served by free, unfettered private suppliers at lower prices and higher quality.

    • Rick Ackerman September 19, 2011, 9:29 pm

      Few of the services we receive for our state and local tax dollars would survive, Ronald. I don’t have any objections to imposing budget cuts that would make the public sector as efficient as the private sector, but in the meantime, I’d rather not have to give up such “frills” as schools, libraries, road repairs, police and fire departments, etcetera.

    • Steve September 19, 2011, 11:27 pm

      I believe that with import, export, excise, duties, and imposts more than sufficient income could be generated to fund entitlements. Just honestly tax commerce, no the labor of one’s back. The incoming Apple C.E.O. would not get a 373 mill singing bonus based on i-somethings built in China though. It was so once before F.D.R.’s New Deal, when there was so much money 1 million dollar Tiffany Lamps were hung in the Denver Mint.

  • Robert September 19, 2011, 6:36 pm

    I hear it all the time that taxation is theft; so I’m going to lay this out there as succinctly as I can.

    Taxation is not theft in an unambigous sense. Taxation CAN BE theft if applied inappropriately, as it most certainly is today.

    The tricky part is this: Alloidial title law is antithetical to the premise of a just tax system. There has to be concession to the topic of non-replenishable natural resources that serve a common societal good. I recognize that this statement opens me to intellectual and moral challenge (ahem, Steve 🙂 ), but please read my elaboration before your fingers begin dancing across the keyboard:

    One could argue that a person is entitled to their home and property, and no one else has the power to take it from them without the ugly and transparent use of conquest; but what about the natural resources said property might harbor?

    If oil is discovered on “my” property, does said oil “belong” to me?

    This is the tar baby (if you’ll pardon the pun) that we all stick to when we all start talking about fairness and justice regarding taxation.

    There are two kinds of capital resource: Those that can be produced and adequately replenished simply by the application of effort (think agriculture), and there are those that can not be replenished at the rate they are extracted from the Earth and utilized (think oil and mineral products), regardless of how much effort we put in- additional effort can only be applied to extract more.

    In other words- no one “produces” oil. No one “produces” Gold. They extract and refine only what nature (or God- pick your originator of choice) has produced for us- Drillers remove oil from the natural system forever. (or, if not forever, then for such a long geological timeframe that it might as well be forever)

    The Earth is not forming new oil at the rate we are disposing of it, and asteroids are not delivering heavy metals and rare-Earths at the rate we are depleting them.

    This is why we are so fundamentally and cosmically stupid- recycling should be a no-brainer, but the debasement of monetary denomination has blinded us to the real value of what we call “garbage”…

    But, back to taxation (whew- I almost completely commited myself to the recycling tangent- another day, perhaps 🙂 )

    In a fair and just society, any resource that is consumed at a rate that exceeds the natural rate of replenishment could justifiably be taxed- since the excess amount of the resource that you use denies other people the option of that same usage.

    A simple way to look at it is by using theoretical math:

    If there were 6 billion people on Earth, and 6 Billion barrels of oil extracted daily, then everyone would be “entitled” to the energy equivalent of their single barrel per day. People who do not use their entire barrel could chose to the sell (in a free market) their excess supply to those who use more than a single barrel per day; but when the usage by some becomes so great that they exhaust their quota AND the available open market supply; and when these same over-users must then must compel others to willingly sacrifice some of their own to make up the deficit, then the total amount denied to the majority could be levied equally across society, and those who over-use excessively would pay a debt to society to offset this imbalance… in other words, a tax.

    This premise only works and is only fair and just when applied to non-replenishable resources that maintain a global demand base and serve a common good.

    Every other form of taxation is theft- pure and simple.

    I am entitled to 100% of the benefits of my productivity, because I am in control of the choice (option) of whether to work or not. I can not be compelled to work except by forceful coercion (which is also simply transparent conquest).

    I relent that if you held a gun to my head and said “dig that hole” I would probably grab a shovel, but you better not let your guard down on that trigger, because the second you take your eyes off that shovel, it is probably going to be swinging for your skull.

    • Steve September 19, 2011, 9:24 pm

      Robert – easy; the concept of Allodial Title also works in conjunction with commerce. Yes Friend, the oil on your estate belongs to you exclusively for your subsistence use. Sell that oil to someone and watch out because the legitimate tax man will come knocking. The rate of tax on commerce can be punative to ensure that unjust enrichment and illicit gain are taxed out of existence. The societal good was addressed via condemnation for Right of Way like needs. Are we confusing Endowments with privilege Robert? Did I just write the rules by which the U.S. was a Creditor Nation 70 years ago.

      Today, the corporation gets away with murder because the legislative branch has been bought by Mitt’s statement – Corporations are persons.

    • Robert September 21, 2011, 8:08 pm

      “Today, the corporation gets away with murder because the legislative branch has been bought by Mitt’s statement – Corporations are persons.”

      Steve- when I read this statement, the alternative comprehension I formulate is:

      “All Judges are idiots”

  • Daniel September 19, 2011, 5:18 pm

    Big Box vs. Amazon: root of the problem is that state & local taxes cum zoning, and business regulation have become punitive. I argue that the success of web-based retailing results in response to punishment at the local level. Of course governments’ answer is to cast an ever wider net to prevent resourceful newcomers from escaping. Hence the unrelenting federalization of the U.S. and perpetual push to globalization (and one world government, one world currency, one world taxation). Ultimately the defeat of Amazon will be another brick in the wall of the prison planet, and the retailers that survive will be the ones that obtain special preferences due to political connections (and corruption).

  • Argus September 19, 2011, 5:10 pm

    What could we expect next? Postage fee for email???

    • Steve September 19, 2011, 9:15 pm

      coming as the gov owns the Internet

  • Ray Kumar September 19, 2011, 4:56 pm

    Rick, I am glad to see you are not blinded by your libertarian ideology on this subject.

    You echo a similar viewpoint as in this column on the conservative RedState.com blog sometime back.

    http://www.redstate.com/athensrunaway/2011/03/11/state-chamber-of-commerce-declares-war-on-amazoncoms-crony-capitalism/

    Quote: ..Are some animals more equal than others?
    Equality under the law is one of the cornerstones of capitalism.
    What does that mean?
    It means that, in order for free-market capitalism to thrive, the government can not be picking winners and losers..

    • Benjamin September 19, 2011, 6:19 pm

      Thanks, Ray! I was beginning to think that some sort of… spinal maladay… had swept over most commenters here.

  • Reggie September 19, 2011, 4:21 pm

    I recently went to shoes.com to purchase some Salomon hiking boots. I was ready to make the purchase for about $150 when I noticed they added $10 tax to the shopping cart. I then checked Amazon where I found the exact same boots for $126 with no tax and free shipping.
    Where do you think I’m going to purchase this product?
    That’s right. Hello Amazon!!!

  • JQM September 19, 2011, 4:00 pm

    I see your point but how many states and municipalities would smaller retailers be for forced to collect taxes for? Overseas venders? Doesn’t sound practical.
    I tend to agree with those who see the solution in the elimination of sales tax.
    To replace the lost revenues maybe the locals can tax delivery vehicles or something:) That should “level” the playing field in favor of local brick and mortars.

  • mava September 19, 2011, 3:41 pm

    Wow, what a communist approach, Rick. I did not expect this from you.

    1) State has no reason to collect taxes from out of state merchants, as it DID NOT DO ANYTHING TO FACILITATE THEIR BUSINESS.

    2) Why don’t we tax those who are more productive and give money to those who care less, so that the competition is not so bitter? Oh wait, we are already doing it, as we are a communist nation.

    3) Consumers make their choice every time they buy. And when you say that you mostly support the inefficient, faulty business (local), but for this purchase, the price difference was just too great, you really mean that local store is either too stupid, too greedy, or the state government abuses it too much.

    4) What is wrong with emptying all malls, bankrupting all local stores, if they are not what we want? If we obviously want online retail, and vote with our dollars every day?

    5) The economy tells us few things her:
    -there are too many local stores, they need to be a lot spacer.
    -the hated state is ruining peoples lives (hardly a news item)
    -consumers overwhelmingly vote for online as best way to solve the distribution problem.

    What amazes me is the number of people with communist attitudes. Again and again, it proves to me, that we are doomed. The few sober voices that still have an American (soon to be in museum) view, I am afraid is not going to be enough to safeguard anything.

    • Ray Kumar September 19, 2011, 5:07 pm

      Mava, just taking up one of your objections “State has no reason to collect taxes from out of state merchants, as it DID NOT DO ANYTHING TO FACILITATE THEIR BUSINESS”:

      Sales Tax (aka Use Tax) is a consumption tax and and is actually a tax on the consumers. It is not a tax on the merchant for the services it receives – those are real estate taxes, license fees etc. 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 use tax.
      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 treating the out-of-state online merchants as a favored class of merchants exempted from the task of collecting the tax like their fellow in-state competitors. Opposing online sales taxes doesn’t get you any closer to getting rid of sales taxes altogether. All you are really doing is helping remote online merchants like Amazon maintain an unfair advantage.

    • Rick Ackerman September 19, 2011, 6:43 pm

      No one so far has addressed my point that AMZN has the ability to destroy big box retailers just as Wal-Mart destroyed Main Street retailers. I’d be interested in your take on this, Mava. (ps: I am not a commie — or even a collectivist.)

    • Carol September 19, 2011, 8:21 pm

      Rick >>”No one so far has addressed my point that AMZN has the ability to destroy big box retailers just as Wal-Mart destroyed Main Street retailers.”

      Well my limited understanding of capitalism is that competition is good. Competition gives the people what they want at the price they want. If Amazon is giving people what they want and it puts the big box retailers out of business – so be it!

      Again I will reiterate it is NOT the sales tax that makes a difference because the lack of paying sales tax (for online purchases) is negated by the need to pay shipping. So if Amazon is taking business from mainstreet it is NOT because they don’t charge sales tax as this article tries to argue. If Amazons costs are lower then mainstreet and they can pass that cost savings onto the customer then maybe it is time to roll up the mainstreet marketplace and put all retail shopping online (which will not ever happen nor would I desire such) but that is the point of capitalism is it not?

      So Rick if Amazon puts Big Box stores out of business because they have a better business model (better by measure of more profitable and generate more revenue) then why should we care?

      &&&&&&&

      I can’t speak for Wal-Mart shoppers, Carol, but speaking for myself, I’d rather have a choice about where I shop, and those choices are apt to become increasingly limited if we continue to tax-advantage Amazon so that it can crush its dwindling competition (including, most immediately, Best Buy).

      A far bigger concern is whether the ruthlessly efficient capitalism you would endorse has corrupted us to the core. While it is undoubtedly true that we can buy fabulous stuff more cheaply than ever these days, the truly important things in life — things like quality education, health care, houses, savings accounts and stay-at-home moms that were affordable on a single income 50 years ago — have slipped beyond the grasp of most Americans. In fact, over the last thirty years, we have permanently indentured ourselves to creditors just to sustain the rapidly fading illusion of The American Dream.

      RA

    • Steve September 19, 2011, 9:14 pm

      How about forgetting an illegitimate sales tax altogether. Tax the gross income gained upon labor and markup at a fixed rate against all commerce.

  • Jim September 19, 2011, 3:18 pm

    I think the sales tax issue for states where Amazon has a physical presence (i.e. distribution center) is a perfect example of when governments should extend a tax break. While the company employs 1000’s of personnel in the state then tax breaks will be extended. The additional tax from the money being spent by the employees and the tax from those that get hired because of that additional spending (e.g restaurants, theatres, etc) will more than make up for the tax breaks. BTW, I don’t agree with paying companies to move to a state as there are so many that can and will “game” that system.

  • Carol September 19, 2011, 2:41 pm

    I have to disagree with your position Rick. In my book ALL taxes are theft and any time I can have/buy/do something without being robbed (taxed) I will do so. Therefore I will support Amazon in their fight to not be taxed.

    Further for all those who think that Amazon or any other online retailer has ANY advantage over brick and mortar they are being short sighted. With all retail sales, while the buyer may avoid paying sales taxes, shipping still has to be paid. We all know nothing is free so even when “free shipping” is offered it is still being paid by the buyer with an increase in the price.

    Online retailers also have to have staff to handle stocking, shipping, handling, inquiries, returns, customer service, etc. and they have to have warehouse space just as brick and mortar stores have to have staff to handle stocking, checkout, customer service and retail space. Looks fairly equivalent in costs to me. So if Amazon is charging lower prices I would guesstimate that Best Buy et al could also do the same but they are too greedy to lower their prices in order to compete!

    • Benjamin September 19, 2011, 3:46 pm

      Exactly Carol. Amazon, or any e-retailer for that matter, SHOULD, in a sane world, be the more costly option. Owe that, as you said, to the shipping cost. Said another way, you’d be paying more through e-retail for the availability of the thing that the B&M store was out of, as well as the expedience of having it sooner rather than later and the convenience of having it dropped off to your door.

      Now, I’m not saying it’ll happen this way, but if Backwards World did prevail, then shipping costs in an exclusively e-retail economy would go UP. A clean-sweep victory does not need to occur for that to happen, though. The cost will go up to the extent that “old-fashioned” shopping goes away.

      So aside from saving retail jobs that do have a right (economic usefulness) to exist, folks might want to consider the yet-seen costs of the “screw the dinosaurs!” approach.

    • Rick Ackerman September 19, 2011, 6:31 pm

      No argument about taxes being theft, Carol, but as long as we’re going to have them, Amazon should be made to compete on a level playing field. Regarding the cost of shipping vs sales tax, and all of the other costs, AMZN is still cheapest for most merchandise. Meanwhile, the higher prices charged by Best Buy reflect, not “greed,” but higher costs of doing business.

  • gary leibowitz September 19, 2011, 2:38 pm

    Protectionist attitude from Rick? Now I have seen everything. If fairness was the name of the game perhaps your stance on why the rich should have a huge tax break these past 10 years while the middle class is on the edge of becoming extinct can be explained? The very wealthy have enjoyed a tax break that you would have to go back 50 years to find its equal. Fairness? The world debt situation is so dire that any thought of keeping the trillion dollars per year tax breaks is beyond absurd. Republicans love to tag this argument with a one liner, class warfare. Where is the fairness of GE’s zero taxes, the largest disparity between rich and poor ever recorded, the need to do away with regulations when it was the lack of regulation that caused a debt implosion. The notion from Greenspan that companies can regulate themselves makes you wonder just how smart that man was.

    Fairness? Correct me if I am wrong but capitalism has nothing to do with fairness. The strong adapt and the weak fall. Isn’t the idea of fairness and protection a European concept? Surely you don’t want socialism to creep in.

    I suspect this article was to incite rather than to enlighten.

    • mikeck September 19, 2011, 3:47 pm

      Dare I hope that this will be the last time I have to say this…businesses do not pay taxes, people do. I have written in detail about this before, but it seems to go over some heads…businesses add ALL expenses to the price they charge for their products and / or services.

    • Larry D September 19, 2011, 5:08 pm

      ” the need to do away with regulations when it was the lack of regulation that caused a debt implosion.”

      Yup. Thank the repeal of Glass-Steagal for that. Take a bow, Pres. Clinton.

    • Rick Ackerman September 19, 2011, 6:26 pm

      Even with all of those loopholes, Gary, the rich are already paying nearly all of the income taxes in this country. My problem is with defining “rich” down to the $200k level. All that will do is stifle the entrepreneurs who create most of the jobs.

      Concerning GE, why should companies be taxed at all, or corporate income distributed as dividends taxed twice? In the end, it is not companies that have income, pay taxes and collect dividends, but people.

    • Carol September 19, 2011, 6:33 pm

      Rick >> “Concerning GE, why should companies be taxed at all, or corporate income distributed as dividends taxed twice? In the end, it is not companies that have income, pay taxes and collect dividends, but people.”

      Lol, in the law “income” is defined as CORPORATE GAIN. Companies should and are the only things that pay taxes. People do NOT pay taxes only corporate “persons”.

    • Steve September 19, 2011, 9:08 pm

      Rick, it is rare I disagree with you. This Nation was a Creditor Nation when no individual paid income tax and the tax burden rested upon commerce transactions over what was used to subsist on one’s Allodial Estate. What changed is that a corporate person is deemed absolutely equal to a Man with Covenant Endowment. Income is defined as the gain upon someone elses labor. I hire Joe for 20, charge 50 and the income is 30. Before this Nation went to hell in a handbasket the work of the hands was trade quid pro qua for a thing, maybe money, maybe some lumber of equal value. NO GAIN in trading labor equally for something agreed by contract to be equal. Gain, now anything a corporate entity does is deemed gain.

    • mikeck September 20, 2011, 3:00 am

      Here we go again…Carol wrote, “Companies should and are the only things that pay taxes. People do NOT pay taxes only corporate “persons”.”

      And approximately how long would those “businesses” stay in business if they did not pass their costs, including taxes, on to their customers?

      Call it a business tax if that makes you happy, but it is not they who are the victims of that particular theft.

      The truth is, those taxes are used for the benefit of businesses and politicians. Businesses can be more competitive if they receive “business tax” breaks for campaign contributions. Without that, GE’s advantage would be gone and maybe politicians would have to work like the rest of us.

  • John Jay September 19, 2011, 2:32 pm

    I think it is way too late for us to all pay a little more for the good of the greater American system. The time to do that was when the first steel mills shut down due to steel imports from Japan back in the 70s. Then, one by one every industry suffered the same fate, now we don’t even make socks or blue jeans here anymore. Now it’s everyman for himself. I took it a step further recently. When my old laptop died, I went online and bought TWO of the same model used on Ebay for under $150 total, with MS Office Suite and other goodies already installed. They work fine, and I did not have to pay
    four or five hundred dollars for a cheap brand new laptop with a much smaller screen, or pay anything to MS for the software. None of those laptops are made here anyway, so retail outlets will be the last vestiges of the old economic model to succumb to the New World economic order. The same goes for government jobs supported by sales or income tax, they will all be swept away by the end of the middle class in the USA. The top 400 families are just about done with us, they are in the mopping up phase now.

  • Mark Uzick September 19, 2011, 12:52 pm

    You’re mistaken Rick:
    Forcing all retail purchases to be subject to the collection of a tribute to the state, out of some “libertarian” sense of fairness, amounts to equal enslavement for all.

    The only libertarian way to address this problem of an unequal playing field is use tax free e-competition as an argument for states to reduce or eliminate sales tax.

    Liberty is not “equal misery for all”; if Amazon loses the battle, look forward to sales tax hikes across the nation as the threat of e-competition is eliminated.

    • Rick Ackerman September 19, 2011, 6:17 pm

      You’re right, Mark: going tax-free is the true libertarian solution. Unfortunately, it will be a political non-starter until the House is filled with libertarians.

  • Rich September 19, 2011, 8:53 am

    With respect for Amish and Luddites everywhere, going back to the future is not progress. Best Buy and other Brick and Mortars have presences online and certain advantages in loco.

    An automatic transparent 28 basis point transaction tax with a budget freeze can cure many government economic ills, chills and spills and free up productive capital to pay down the debts to prevent economic Armageddon…

    • Steve September 19, 2011, 9:01 pm

      No, only responsible voters can cure the problem by jailing the criminals who will never stop the scheme to take more and more.

  • salman September 19, 2011, 8:11 am

    Estee Lauder Companies Inc. (EL)
    Looking for a 15% gain!

    http://faizan-stockpicks.blogspot.com/2011/09/estee-lauder-companies-inc-el.html

  • PhotoRadarScam September 19, 2011, 7:42 am

    While the arguments are valid, the concept makes starting a .com retail store incredibly impractical and logistically difficult. Imagine keeping track of state and city sales tax requirements for every city and state in the country, and filling out all of the tax forms once a month, whether you make a sale there or not! Not to mention applying for the sales tax licenses and all of those fees. You couldn’t do it yourself, you’d have to hire some kind of accounting service.

    If we want economic recovery, we can’t be putting up more obstacles and regulations for businesses.

    • Ray Kumar September 19, 2011, 3:50 pm

      With regards to your statement “Imagine keeping track of state and city sales tax requirements for every city and state in the country” , there are now several companies who do this for free. I think the states compensate them for their trouble just like in many states the brick & mortar retailer is credited back something like 0.5% of the sales tax it collects.

      Some names: SpeedTax, Avalara, Exactor, Taxware, AccurateTax and Fed-Tax (TaxCloud).

      This is what Fed-Tax states on their blog:
      “As part of the Streamlined Agreement, states have certified several companies to provide technology solutions to online merchants to make collecting sales tax easy. My company offers a service, called TaxCloud, that automatically calculates accurate local sales tax. It also prepares, files and remits the sales tax to the Streamlined states. TaxCloud is completely free to merchants.”
      Note the FREE part.

  • Benjamin September 19, 2011, 5:38 am

    “Hardware, jewelry and sporting goods stores are somewhat of an exception, since their customers frequently require knowledgeable help.”

    True, but I find that going to a manufacturers site often answers most if not all questions. Anything not on their site can be handled via email. That’s neither here nor there, though…

    Yes, sales tax should apply to Amazon. All other online retail sites charge sales tax, so it’s not like it would be some kind of big technological challenge for Amazon. But in defense of Amazon and consumers, the sales tax would only allow states to continue overspending. And where they don’t have any new pork, they can do what the state of Indiana did…

    http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=135&ArticleID=60884

    Bonuses! Alriiight! The only problem is that about $3 billion of the “surplus” was federal stimulus money. In order to cover the shortfall, the state of Indiana is relying on mere sunny forecasts of a real surplus in the future.

    So while Amazon purchases should pay sales tax, it should only be on the uncompromising stance that ALL states acheive very serious and totally real reductions in spending. Yes, I’m having “opium induced dreams”, but what’s right is right (darn it!).

    • Steve September 19, 2011, 8:58 pm

      Ben, How much is the state paying the tax collector Amazon and are the federal/state benefits for being a state employee good as a government agent?

    • Benjamin September 19, 2011, 10:00 pm

      Hi, Steve. Well, let’s see… Nothing for nothing. But supposing Amazon did collect. Why should they be paid to? Isn’t that ground more than a little hazardous?

    • Steve September 19, 2011, 11:18 pm

      Ben, if one is doing a government job as a tax collector, why shouldn’t they be paid by the government. Tax collection is the right of government, not the obligation of a business owner.

    • Benjamin September 20, 2011, 8:50 am

      Steve,

      I have to make a correction… In another post, Rick rattled off a list of things that are paid for with state sales tax revenues. Those things are the compensation for their trouble. So businesses collect the tax to have those things that they presumably want. If they didn’t want them, they would either reduce or eliminate the sales tax, or move to a state with no sales tax.

      Which brings us back to Amazon…

      If they want to do retail in states with a sales tax, then that should be taken as their desire to obligate themselves. If they don’t want that obligation, then they ought to be limited to selling in those states with no sales tax at all. To argue otherwise is to say that Amazon has a right to force (yes, force) the people in another state to change their previously agreed upon policy. If Indiana wants it’s police, fire department, schools, roads, sanitation infrastructure, etc. to be paid via a tax paid at the retail stores… Who is Amazon to undermine that decision? That is really no different than the federal government telling a state that it can’t have a retail sales tax. And if that isn’t right, then neither is Amazon. So AMZN can either comply with state policy or just not do any business with the residents of those states.

    • Benjamin September 20, 2011, 9:31 am

      Forgot one thing…

      If a tax-collecting business is paid with more than the aforementioned services (money, ie), that would be double-dipping. It would also be the dangerous ground of tempting businesses into becoming one with bloated and abusive government. They would be less likely to complain because the more they collected, the more they would be paid. This in turn would enscounce a policy of elevated/rising taxation and government spending.

    • Steve September 21, 2011, 1:07 am

      Benjamin, State corporations are creations of the government, and its employees are internal goverment property – sucks doesn’t it.

  • A. Rand Fan September 19, 2011, 5:10 am

    As a believer that government has way more “revenue” then they need. I offer this simple solution to even the playing field. No Sales Tax period.

    • Michael September 19, 2011, 8:40 pm

      Finally a voice of reason.
      We have five states without sales tax.
      How about stopping all this foolishness that we need more of those insane taxes?

      Federal Income Tax- 28%
      Social Security Income Tax – 15.5%
      State Income tax =10%
      State Sales Tax =8%
      Other State Taxes=4%
      Inflation Tax = 5%
      Workers Compensation(Income Tax) =10%
      Mortgage/Credit Card Usury Tax…
      Hundreds of fees (taxes)…

      We are somewhere about 70% tax overall. Compare to the Feudal life where serf had to pay only 30%.
      We are worse than serfs now.

      I hope it a time to wake up finally.
      Unless the shepple lost all of the brain cells after another injection of Gardasil or Swine… or Bird… or whatever the latest talking head tells that it is good for you.

    • Steve September 19, 2011, 8:56 pm

      Michael, did you forget the Fees ? Here in Oregon there is a Fee of 750.00 to answer if one is a defendant in a court case. 50.00 to appear at a settlement conference, and 20.00 to file an order of any kind. Then there are building code fees, license fees, auto fees, and every fee is going through the roof hyper-style.

      A Fee is supposed to be the actual cost to file stamp a piece of paper. Now Fees are used as discriminatory state taxation.

  • mario cavolo September 19, 2011, 5:09 am

    The expansion of the online world is a prolific expansion of distribution choices for a given buyer. In that respect it simply is the same old question of what are the parameters a buyer wants in their decision-making process.

    The underlying core point is one of “relationship” with the purchaser. For smaller entrepreneurial store fronts that means you’re going straight to hell without quality, professional, efficient, friendly customer service. Wait, I take it back, the service doesn’t even have to be efficient or perfect!, but it must be friendly. Ever hear the adage “a bad waiter ruins a good meal but a good waiter can make a bad meal.” ?? I mean to say, that even if you plan to go out for a $50 dinner purchase and the orders are all wrong for one reason or another, its the waiter who can easily be the hero if they know how and I suggest the same is true for any retail customer staff in a store.

    If a purchaser deletes the experience of personal face to face “relationship” out of the equation on a given purchase, that’s that.

    Meanwhile, more taxes for the middle class and sales taxes to boot? Ugh…can’t fight the changing world, can’t fight the reality of invention, of a system of distribution across the entire globe as common as drinking water; a phone call; fight that reality by taxing?

    Should we feel sorry for former buggy whip shop owners? They had their demise only 70 or so years ago when the automobile showed up. Would / did we want the government 70 years ago to step in, to tax more, to protect them as their business and product becomes obsolete by progress? Tough issues with so many layers and sides…

    Cheers, Mario

    • Benjamin September 19, 2011, 12:14 pm

      “Should we feel sorry for former buggy whip shop owners? They had their demise only 70 or so years ago when the automobile showed up. Would / did we want the government 70 years ago to step in, to tax more, to protect them as their business and product becomes obsolete by progress? Tough issues with so many layers and sides…”

      Are they obsolete? I don’t think so. For quite a few things, it’d be silly to order them online. So there’s going to be retail stores serving that need. And as long as they’re serving that need, they’ll probbaly still keep inventories (smaller, to be sure) of big ticket items that you can otherwise get online. And why not? You never know when someone’ll come in, looking to replace a TV.

      But the big thing going for the dinosaurs is that it’s much cheaper to ship bulk, to a store, than it is to have lots of little FedEx trucks running around all day. Just ask the post office (all roads before me seem to come back to the USPS, of late!). They know all about the expense of lots of little trucks running around all day. So get rid of the “dinos” and I’ll laugh myself to death over how all the incredibly savvy, ultra-modern… folks… have a fit over how much shipping costs go up.

      Moral of the story: Online is a crappy replacement for old-fashioned retail, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good _supplement_ to the same. I think both are needed and that neither one should be forced out because ONE “special” company won’t collect/pay sales taxes like it should.

  • Chris T. September 19, 2011, 3:35 am

    There is some validity in this argument from a “we hasten their demise” point of view.

    But:
    How, other than the method of reaching its customers (internet vs. paper catalogs) does Amazon really differ from any catalog vendor, then and now? Or even local retail stores that sell by mail to out of state customers for that matter?

    It is a well settled principle that both of the latter do NOT have to collect sales tax for such out of state purchases.
    Why is this controversial for internet vendors? Only because the various local entities need money.
    Would an Amazon victory ultimately not also hurt all of those still remaining paper-catalog mail order vendors, such as L.L. Bean, virtually all of which also have online sales operations.

    There should be no different outcome, because it is hardly credible to force L.L. Bean to collect sales tax for inet purchases, but not for those made by mail-order or via telephone!

    No idea how to address the valid problem Rick raises with respect to Amazon’s category killer approach, but how to deal with the above?

    As to the first comment:
    “The independents in our area are doing well if they have good customer service.”

    Very true to some extent, I regularly purchase at a local mom-and-pop hardware store, because they know what they are talking about, they’ll sell you 5 screws when that’s all you need, and you don’t have to wait for service.

    But, if you know about high-end audio, many stores have been driven out of business by the cannibalization of service attitude:
    We go to their shops to look at in person, pick their brains with our questions, get a demo, and then go online to purchase from the cheaper vendor, who has to maintain no store, no demo inventory, doesn’t need much training for most of the staff, and so on.

    We really expect to get the service, knowledge, inventory on hand for free, and the demise of these shops, outside of the largest cities esp., shows, that honoring the service by paying for it, is not much in evidence.
    And the consumer group here is hardly one that needs to penny pinch, with multi-amps, speakers, and so on.
    (Despite the ipod, app-streaming paradigm, such things still exist for knowledgable cognoscenti, and it isn’t Bose or B&O, yuck!).

    • mario cavolo September 19, 2011, 5:17 am

      Hey Chris!…. real audiophile…ah yes. I own a pair of Triangle Zerius 202 ‘s , made in France, including their driver’s handmade in-house…sweet stuff… and guess what on the purchase…?…there was a dealer in England who had the last pair on the planet I could find, whom I found via internet search 🙂 ; they were on sale but I paid $200 extra to have ’em shipped here to Shanghai so it all washed out….Cheers, Mario

  • Jill September 19, 2011, 2:58 am

    It seems to me that if libertarianism won the day, society would be ruled by the largest most powerful corporations. Just without all the necessity of buying government influence, as mega-corporations do now. That wouldn’t be necessary, as the government would have little or no power.

    I would expect that under a libertarian form of government, the governments– federal, state and local–would be too weak and small to protect any person or company– or themselves– from the iron will of the mega-corporations.

    But perhaps there is some kind of moderate branch of libertarianism that includes some other more pragmatic options?

    • Eric September 19, 2011, 6:18 am

      Not true. If there is one thing that humans can do well, as a species, it is adapt. We can live underwater, in space, fly through the air and invent a new medium to exist in: cyberspace. At no point in history has a cooporation or cooporations been able to exist as a monopoly without the help of government to restrict entry into a market to their highly intelligent, highly adaptable competitors (at least, based on what I have read). But it makes sense. There are so many smart, highly adaptable people in the world that could think of many different ways to innovate. This is the main reason why the bailouts were/are so gallingly apparent for what they are: to keep the same people in charge. I think that the American people were supposed to buy the whole “end of the world” threats, as if there aren’t geniuses born every minute in this world that could have done a better job than the jerks getting bailed out. But, my pint is that people can innovate so well that the only thing that can keep a monopoly going is the gun of government. IMHO.

    • fallingman September 19, 2011, 4:16 pm

      First of all, you can stop worrying. The Libertarianism movement you see today is a last gasp effort of the remnant to make a difference within a rigged system.. It has no chance, at least unless and until the entire system melts down.

      The fascism you bemoan has already won the day. To use Simon Johnson’s phrase, the “silent coup” is complete.

      We are already ruled by the largest, most powerful corporations, and it got that way BECAUSE your precious government was bought and paid for to facilitate the process. Instead of protecting me and you from the depradations of the likes of Monsanto and Goldman Sachs, the government protects its sponsors/bosses from competition and lawsuits, and in the case of the banks and hybrids like GE, the terminal losses they had coming to them as a result of their insanely reckless behavior. But it goes further than that. They do their bidding.

      Whatever they want they get. How sweet for them. Heads I win big. Tails I don’t lose.

      Why the hell do you think the companies have to pay and are so willing to pay to buy government influence? And why do they infiltrate the government’s ranks, as Goldman, and Morgan, and Monsanto and Merck have done? Because they get an advantage they wouldn’t have without the iron fist of government clearing the way for them. Is that not perfectly obvious? Eric is correct. Without government to protect their insider pals, businesses have to actually compete and answer to all of us in the marketplace with no special privileges, no guarantees, no bailouts.

      The sociopaths running the government PRETEND to protect us in exchange for power. It has ever been thus. And they’re able to maintain the scam, because people like you drank the koolaid they served up in the government schools. You dupes actually believe that government is not only a necessary evil, but is capable of being a force for good. When they conned a nation of the gullible and distracted, promising them a smorgasbord of “benefits” along with protection, not only did we doom ourselves to the status of serfs, we completely foreclosed on the possibility that Libertarianism would “win the day.” It’s over. We’ve lost.

      As Orwell said, if you want to see the future, picture a boot stop stamping on a human face – forever.

      And guess who wears the boot? The people YOU put in power.

      Quit the bitching and moaning about the” mega corporation’s” influence Jill. YOU and your kind enabled them. By allowing the government to get big and powerful enough to be taken over, while cheerleading the process, you dug your own grave.

      Congratulations.

      Last thought. There is no moderate branch of libertarianism. You want us to be moderately what? Moderately principled? Moderately committed to freedom? The whole concept is absurd.

      “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

      Karl Hess wrote those words and no truer have ever been spoken.

      But, then again, maybe you’re the kind who cheers for the conniving Bruce as Braveheart cries out … FREEEEEEEEEDOM.

    • redwilldanaher September 19, 2011, 9:53 pm

      No offense Jill but your second paragraph reeks of “Stockholm” syndrome or collectivist talking points, take your pick.

      fallingman, as always, thanks for a great contribution. Saved me a lot of time and with better results!

    • Mark September 20, 2011, 2:27 pm

      You obviously don’t understand the meaning of libertarianism. A libertarian, free market isn’t the same thing as a lawless free-for-all. Libertarianism does not absolve a Government of its duty to prevent fraud and theft by Corporations or permit it to become a ‘weak’ Government as you assume it necessarily will. The idea that a Government just becomes ‘weak’ without the buying/lobbying of it is absurd. It is only the selling out by officials that creates that weakness – not libetarianism. Unfortunately, we have that is spades now, worldwide, and it would never have occurred in a ‘truly’ libertarian system governed by true libertarians.
      There is no such thing as ‘moderate’ libertarianism.

      Its ideal is total freedom to do as you please as long as it does not hurt, abuse, take-advantage-of anyone (or their property), strictly WITHIN THE LAW.

  • Erin September 19, 2011, 2:38 am

    I have wondered year after year why this has continued. Talk about an advantage! And as the country continues to get poorer then this will continue to get magnified more and more. People need to save every penny they can because of the inflationary policy of the fed which will see no end until the system finally collapses.

    We also try to support our shops around town as much as possible except for the big ticket items as well…Well said Rick…

  • Don September 19, 2011, 1:42 am

    My most recent experience two days back
    we bought 2 Samsung flat-screens from Sam’s. We looked at Sears and Best Buy and the deciding factors were Sears and Sam’s prices within 10. and 20. of each; Best Buy 30% higher. Sam’s 3 year extended warranty 70% cheaper than Best Buy or Sears. Going with Sam’s cost me 800. less. Saving sales tax by buying on line was a non issue, for larger purchase I don’t want the hassle of returning if I buy a dud.
    Similar situation we run 4 Toshiba laptops and 1 apple and bought all 4 Toshiba’s at random time at Office Depot
    Bought the Apple in Albq, NM

    Having owned a dot.com around the turn of the century in Austin I find what is hurting some of the smaller/independent merchants is the old fashioned ‘customer service’. The independents in our area are doing well if they have good customer service.
    My take if Best Buy, and others are feeling the pinch perhaps their executive ideology came from the executive wing of the large banks. Netflix is losing thousands of customers simply because they had to ‘fix’ a model that wasn’t broken. It’s your money the way you spend it is your choice. happy trading.
    Don