Amazon / Illinois / Sales Tax

[Lewkowski]

http://illinoisobserver.org/2011/03/...com-sales-tax/

"
(Springfield, IL) — March 11, 2011. Governor Pat Quinn yesterday signed the “Amazon.com tax” to require all online companies doing business in Illinois to collect legally required sales taxes.

“Illinois’ main street businesses are critical to ensuring our long-term economic stability, which is why they must be able to compete with every company doing business online in Illinois,” said Governor Quinn.

“This law will put Illinois-based businesses on a level playing field, protect and create jobs and help us continue to grow in the global marketplace.”

The law sponsored by State Rep. Patrick Verschoore (D-Rock Island) and Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago), will require all online retailers, like Amazon.com, who contract with an “affiliate” in Illinois to collect sales tax on customer purchases and remit it to the Illinois Department of Revenue.

Illinois currently collects sales tax revenue from the more than 20,000 retailers with physical locations in the state, including online and catalog sales from these vendors. However, the Illinois Department of Revenue estimates that between $153 million and $170 million in sales tax revenue per year goes uncollected from on-line purchases.

“Illinois retailers are crucial components of our state economy and our local communities,” said Cullerton. “We need to ensure that those businesses are not at a disadvantage in our modern marketplace.”

“As more consumers decide to do their shopping online, we must make sure that our local businesses are competing on a level playing field with online retailers,” said Verschoore.

Quinn’s action also won applause from Illinois’ top retail advocate group.

“This puts Illinois as a national leader in restoring fairness – fairness for retailers, fairness for the economy but most importantly, fairness for taxpayers,” David Vite, president of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association. “No taxpayer should be punished because out-of-state companies won’t play by the rules.”

Vite’s group also credited Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno (R-Lemont) for her support of the measure.

However, Radogno’s GOP colleague, State Senator Dave Syverson (R-Rockford) criticized the plan, saying, “This is going to cost Illinois thousands of jobs and not bring any new revenue in.”

A Naperville small business owner disagrees with the long-time GOP politician Syverson, a 19-year veteran of the legislature, and backs Quinn’s signature.

“I want to thank Governor Quinn for signing this bill. His action has helped independent bookstores like mine, and thousands of Main Street retailers all across the state,” said Becky Anderson, co-owner of Anderson’s Bookshops. “Illinois businesses will no longer be penalized simply for complying with sales tax laws. This is going to help retailers expand and create jobs.”

"

And fallout:

http://christophercatania.com/2011/0...nor-pat-quinn/

"
As a result of the new law, contracts with all Illinois affiliates of the Amazon Associates Program will be terminated and those Illinois residents will no longer receive advertising fees for sales referred to Amazon.com, Endless.com, or SmallParts.com. Please be assured that all qualifying advertising fees earned prior to April 15, 2011 will be processed and paid in full in accordance with the regular payment schedule. Based on your account closure date of April 15, 2011, any final payments will be paid by July 1, 2011.
"


Just government at work...

[Dreadnaught]

In the 1990s a case went to the Supreme Court about this relating to mail order catalogues. The Court ruled you can't compel out-of-state businesses to collect sales tax if they don't have a physical presence. I don't see much substantive differences with these new taxes, I would expect them to be shut down once the cases reach the federal courts again.

But I find it weird that the most budget-strapped state governments seem to really think this will be a major revenue generator.

[Illusions]

Just government at work...

Alright, so here's the thing. While you could have presented a decent argument as to why Illinois and other states should not be collecting sales tax on out of state businesses, you've instead decided to go with your standard logic of: the government has done something you don't think they should be able to do, this results in bad things happening, therefore what the government has done is bad, and the bad things are the government's fault. We can easily demonstrate that you don't follow this logic when it comes to other things. For instance, say a gang member was executed in Texas, so his fellow gang members murder a bunch of people as reprisal. Would you claim that what Texas did was bad, or that it was the Texas government's fault that other people got murdered? No of course you wouldn't. Would you attempt to present this as an argument that Texas shouldn't execute people? Again of course not.

So by the same logic that it isn't the Texas government's fault for those reprisal murders, it is not the Illinois government's fault that Amazon pulled the Amazon Associates Program in Illinois, it was Amazon's choice to do so.

Perhaps you could explain, using better reasoning, why what Illinois is doing is bad, because there are a few reasons, and actually using those would likely result in a better discussion and debate occurring here.

[Ominous Gamer]

With the internet becoming what it is, I don't see tax free sales lasting much longer. The government(s) will find a way to collect the taxes they fell they are owed since those taxes would have been collected otherwise, since so much of daily needs are now shippable online.

That being said, this attempt here came about from the wrong people for the wrong reasons, but hey, lets not let that get in the way of Lewk's government bashing fetish

[Dreadnaught]

That assumes that online retail will somehow eliminate physical retail. I really don't think that's realistic.

[Ominous Gamer]

It doesn't have to eliminate it, only overtake it (and when that happens physical locations will lose a huge bargaining chip with manufacturers when setting prices), and I don't see physical retail locations maintaining anywhere near their current presence within the next decade, pending any catastrophic transportation issues. Even then, the move to purely digital materials (entertainment being a large recipient of expendable income) and purchasing access instead of licences will be the next tax roadbump.

[Dreadnaught]

When you see a movie, you pay local sales tax. I don't think theaters are going out of business. Nor is grocery shopping, retail apparel, etc.

Online retail is certainly large and growing, but it's growth will most certainly not be a straight line towards eclipsing brick-and-mortar sales. And even if retail was somehow eclipsed by ecommerce, it doesn't mean states are "losing-out". After all, brick-and-mortar sales includes boats, cars, homes, etc after all. I'm pretty confident there will always be plenty of intra-state commerce for tax revenue.

[RandBlade]

My company gets business from 3 seperate means - physically at the location, on the phone or "interactive". While its all done physically in the same location, my company gets about 50% of its business online now, its probably the leading source now, followed by phone with physical presence last.

The interactive percentage has risen for years and now with a decent percentage coming from the relatively new iPhone app and an Android app to follow its convenient and just keeps rising.

3D is a bit of a saviour right now for cinemas, I never go to the cinema anymore unless its to see a 3D movie, get a similar experience at home instead. Won't be long until we get 3D at home too.

[Ominous Gamer]

When you see a movie, you pay local sales tax. I don't think theaters are going out of business. Nor is grocery shopping, retail apparel, etc.

I was actually going to use theaters, hell the entire mall experience, as a sign of declining retail importance.
Once the studios get there heads out of their asses, theaters will be history. Yeah, $30 right now to watch a movie at home on release night is insane, but that price will drop. Especially if theaters continue their hissy fits about not advertising for those movies. To make it worse, what happens when this transition to streaming ends up favoring studios that are not only located outside the state, but outside the country.
At best, movie theaters will survive as dinner theaters. Just like movie theaters destroyed the drive in.

Online retail is certainly large and growing, but it's growth will most certainly not be a straight line towards eclipsing brick-and-mortar sales. And even if retail was somehow eclipsed by ecommerce, it doesn't mean states are "losing-out". After all, brick-and-mortar sales includes boats, cars, homes, etc after all. I'm pretty confident there will always be plenty of intra-state commerce for tax revenue.

There will always be those purchases that have to be made on location. I don't think cars will be included in that category forever, or even boats. But those aren't enough to make up for the day to day revenue thats lost to online shopping (especially since they are already part of the income). I can decorate an entire house, build my computer, and find games to play on it, without ever paying taxes. I could have ordered baby food, diapers, hell EVERYTHING, Scarlett needed her first year, and the state wouldn't have got a fucking dime from me (outside of shipping).

[RandBlade]

I virtually bought my car 6 years ago online. The dealer couldn't believe I didn't even want to take it for a test-drive.

I went to a local dealer, had a test-drive, went home, Googled the model of car and found a location 70 miles away that sold it for £500 cheaper. Bought it over the phone. Brits buying cars from mainland Europe is becoming more popular due to the difference in tax-rates, if it wasn't for the fact the mainland has the drivers seat in the wrong location I suspect it'd be a lot more popular. Same with boats.

Only thing I can't see getting online is bricks and mortar. What else is there? In the past year Amanda and I have bought online: Clothes, groceries, drink, cooked food, games, electronics, a Laptop, our mortgage, etc, etc, etc - going out to the shops now is more an experience than actually being necessary. We go to the shops together as something fun to do rather than something we have to.

[Dreadnaught]

When I say "online", I'm talking about things you buy online and are shipped from a different jurisdiction. But many of those things such as groceries (plus what you sell at the store) are still being made/distributed within the same region, which in the US would likely make them still eligible for sales tax.

The particular US dilemma is that we have 8,000 different tax jurisdictions, which makes tax collection...interesting.

[agamemnus]

Well, yes, it's not fair that Amazon doesn't pay tax in Illinois.

Just because something's not fair doesn't make it illegal. Just like GE getting $3B in tax credits on US profits of I think $5B. Not fair, but not illegal.

BTW, it's not fair for those brick and mortar stores, but it's also more efficient to order books rather than to get them from a bookstore... those extra spacesthat "Becky Anderson" would have had for counter jobs is simply wealth that could have gone to the book buyers.

People still buy from brick and mortar stores (for the experience), up to a point. If Illinois wants to compete, they should lower the sales tax so that the "brick and mortar experience" is enough to overcome the extra tax.

[Draco]

Alright, so here's the thing. While you could have presented a decent argument as to why Illinois and other states should not be collecting sales tax on out of state businesses, you've instead decided to go with your standard logic of: the government has done something you don't think they should be able to do, this results in bad things happening, therefore what the government has done is bad, and the bad things are the government's fault. We can easily demonstrate that you don't follow this logic when it comes to other things. For instance, say a gang member was executed in Texas, so his fellow gang members murder a bunch of people as reprisal. Would you claim that what Texas did was bad, or that it was the Texas government's fault that other people got murdered? No of course you wouldn't. Would you attempt to present this as an argument that Texas shouldn't execute people? Again of course not.

So by the same logic that it isn't the Texas government's fault for those reprisal murders, it is not the Illinois government's fault that Amazon pulled the Amazon Associates Program in Illinois, it was Amazon's choice to do so.

Perhaps you could explain, using better reasoning, why what Illinois is doing is bad, because there are a few reasons, and actually using those would likely result in a better discussion and debate occurring here.

With the internet becoming what it is, I don't see tax free sales lasting much longer. The government(s) will find a way to collect the taxes they fell they are owed since those taxes would have been collected otherwise, since so much of daily needs are now shippable online.

That being said, this attempt here came about from the wrong people for the wrong reasons, but hey, lets not let that get in the way of Lewk's government bashing fetish

Why don't you guys address the actual article/topic instead of throwing an ad hominem attack at Lewkowski?
I've noticed this a lot around here. He posts a topic, and there's always someone who says something along the lines of "Well you're only doing it because of this...therefore your argument/claim is invalid."

[GGT]

Why don't you guys address the actual article/topic instead of throwing an ad hominem attack at Lewkowski?
I've noticed this a lot around here. He posts a topic, and there's always someone who says something along the lines of "Well you're only doing it because of this...therefore your argument/claim is invalid."

His history has precedents. Some say he's a troll, and he's admitted to something like that. Many try to engage Lewk, and sometimes it clicks and inspires good debates. But it's mostly hit or miss. Does that answer your question?

[Draco]

His history has precedents. Some say he's a troll, and he's admitted to something like that. Many try to engage Lewk, and sometimes it clicks and inspires good debates. But it's mostly hit or miss. Does that answer your question?

Yeah but still no reason to take on the "Your argument is invalid because of "insert ad hominem attack"" approach.

[GGT]

Yeah but still no reason to take on the "Your argument is invalid because of "insert ad hominem attack"" approach.

True, if you're reading things for the first time here and don't know the long history of posters, it might look that way. Hang around a while. There's a separate dynamic going on.

[Draco]

True, if you're reading things for the first time here and don't know the long history of posters, it might look that way. Hang around a while. There's a separate dynamic going on.

Sort of am I guess. I only had a passive interest in the "Community Chat" forum at Atari (since I was from the Unreal 2 forum).

[GGT]

And I had only a passive interest in the off topic Pub at Atard. There seemed to be a lot of interesting people there. Wish they'd all migrated here to spice things up......

[Draco]

Yeah there were a lot of cool guys (and a few girls) actually It was all fun and games there!

[Hazir]

I am pretty certain Amazon and it's subsidiaries collect VAT for their sales in the EU.

[Hazir]

I virtually bought my car 6 years ago online. The dealer couldn't believe I didn't even want to take it for a test-drive.

I went to a local dealer, had a test-drive, went home, Googled the model of car and found a location 70 miles away that sold it for £500 cheaper. Bought it over the phone. Brits buying cars from mainland Europe is becoming more popular due to the difference in tax-rates, if it wasn't for the fact the mainland has the drivers seat in the wrong location I suspect it'd be a lot more popular. Same with boats.

Only thing I can't see getting online is bricks and mortar. What else is there? In the past year Amanda and I have bought online: Clothes, groceries, drink, cooked food, games, electronics, a Laptop, our mortgage, etc, etc, etc - going out to the shops now is more an experience than actually being necessary. We go to the shops together as something fun to do rather than something we have to.

Actually, you can get cars with the wheel on the right hand side without too much problems as well. Though I think it's becoming less interesting as the Dutch taxation on cars is being brought into line with other EU countries.

[Ominous Gamer]

Yeah but still no reason to take on the "Your argument is invalid because of "insert ad hominem attack"" approach.

His argument is invalid because of the way he presents it. If he took a balanced approach towards these things it wouldn't be an issue. Instead he tries to fit everything he can into some sort of liberal or big government rant. Hence the pointless 2 cent remark he made after the article.

and I'm pretty sure I addressed what Illinois is trying to do, and more.

[Draco]

^^Ok fair enough you did But the other guy didn't..

[Flixy]

Plus he recycles a lot of arguments that have been attacked on content many, many times before. At some point you just give up, I suppose. And he doesn't appear to read any responses anyway.

[Illusions]

Why don't you guys address the actual article/topic instead of throwing an ad hominem attack at Lewkowski?

A request for Lewk to use arguments that are more detailed than snide remarks about the government, liberals, etc. with an explanation as to why the argument he's currently putting forth is not very good is an ad hominem attack?

I've noticed this a lot around here. He posts a topic, and there's always someone who says something along the lines of "Well you're only doing it because of this...therefore your argument/claim is invalid."

Thats not what my response says at all.

[agamemnus]

You shouldn't try to put posters in a cookie mold, you know? Let Lewk run freeee. I think his style of posting is fine... as long as everyone else doesn't do the same thing. :P

[Ominous Gamer]

Then he needs to be running free away from D&D

[Illusions]

You shouldn't try to put posters in a cookie mold, you know?

When you go to the bathroom its assumed you're going to piss in the toilet. If you go in and piss on the floor, people aren't odd or out of line for telling them to piss in the toilet and not on the floor. Likewise when you enter a forum called Debate and Discussion, you should be trying to involve yourself in some form or manner of debate or discussion...not pissing on the floor...

[RandBlade]

And he does, just because he doesn't follow a mainstream view, his views are actually both sparking and taking part in a debate and discussion. Your are just b**ching and moaning. So if anything you're off topic, so how about you either ignore him, or does post your whining in the D&D forum as its neither Debating nor Discussion.

[Illusions]

And he does, just because he doesn't follow a mainstream view, his views are actually both sparking and taking part in a debate and discussion. Your are just b**ching and moaning. So if anything you're off topic, so how about you either ignore him, or does post your whining in the D&D forum as its neither Debating nor Discussion.

Did you even read my original post in this thread? How is it not on topic? It addressed the logic of his OP and stated we could have a better discussion if he didn't just default to "The Government is Bad!"...