COMMENTS: 36
Amazon's Success: Tax Avoidance, Rather Than Savvy Entrepreneurial Spirit
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email.
The business press has written numerous stories explaining how Jeff Bezos, Amazon's founder and CEO, is a truly brilliant businessman. This may well be true, but the secret of his success is not in the futuristic world of the Internet, rather it's in the old-fashioned world of tax avoidance. The key to Amazon's profits is its customers do not have to pay sales taxes on their purchases. In effect, Amazon has been allowed to set itself up as a virtual tax-free shopping zone.
The point here is simple: if someone goes to their neighborhood book store, clothes store, toy store, or even Wal-Mart (Amazon sells just about everything these days), they generally have to pay sales tax on whatever they buy. In some states, the sales tax can be higher than 8 percent, costing a family $16 or more on a $200 purchase
But not at Amazon: operating in the 21st century Internet, Amazon shoppers can purchase their products without paying state sales tax (unless you are unlucky enough to live in one of the four states where Amazon has a physical presence). As a result of a loophole in the law, Amazon is not required to collect sales tax on its sales. Amazon effectively splits this tax bonanza with its customers, giving them an incentive to keep coming back.
To see how important the tax subsidy is, Amazon earned just under $400 million in profits last year, which is approximately equal to 3 percent of its $13 billion in sales. If we assume an average state sales tax of 4 percent on purchases, Amazon's tax subsidy exceeded Amazon's profits.
While Amazon and its customers can both be happy about this situation, this is not a classic win-win story. The sales diverted to Amazon and other Internet retailers came at the expense of old-fashioned brick and mortar retailers who haven't mastered the 21st century skill of tax avoidance. These old-timers are losing business and profits because of Amazon's tax subsidy.
State and local governments are also losing tax revenue. This means these governments must either cut back services provided to their residents or they must raise other taxes. Of course buying goods over the Internet does not reduce the demand for services from state and local governments. So, when politicians promise not to tax the Internet they are in effect promising to have higher taxes on items other than Internet purchases.
The fact that so many politicians are so anxious to pledge to raise taxes on non-Internet purchases probably reflects the fact Internet shoppers tend to be relatively more affluent and, therefore, more likely to contribute money to political campaigns than people who don't shop on the Internet. Candidates are always happy to help such people with a few bucks off their Internet purchases, even if it means the people who shop at Wal-Mart pay more.
Amazon and other Internet retailers also feature prominently in this story. They have not been shy about using their political power to ensure their tax subsidy remains in place as long as possible.
At the moment, there is little political momentum to take away Amazon's tax subsidy. The businesses that suffer from the subsidized competition are either too disorganized to do much, or have more pressing problems to deal with, such as paying for health care for their workers. The general public has been kept largely uninformed on the issue because the news media generally opt not to report on subsidies to major businesses and relatively affluent customers.
So, if you can get to the web to do your shopping, you should appreciate the fact you don't have to pay sales tax like Wal-Mart shoppers. And, you should take pride your tax subsidies have allowed Amazon to be a major international retailer. Jeff Bezos couldn't have done it without us.
Stay up to date with the latest Economy headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rjgwood on Oct 30, 2007 2:47 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's talk about serious tax restructuring that will tax the wealthy in this country who haven't paid its fair share EVER in the tax structure, but has never had it so good as they do today.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» FAIR SHARE??
Posted by: gellero
» RE: FAIR SHARE??
Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: FAIR SHARE??
Posted by: thekidde
» Just curious
Posted by: xconservative
» RE: FAIR SHARE??
Posted by: xconservative
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nolsen311 on Oct 31, 2007 8:38 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
don't for a second think that state governments don't know about this, and aren't doing anything to change it. Washington, in addition to numerous other states, is signed on to be part of the streamlined sales tax initiative. this allows them to collect interstate sales taxes by reducing the burden of compliance, thus removing one of the arguments that has prevented the closing of this "loophole" previously.
yes, i'm aware that it's not truly an interstate tax, but a tax on state residents purchasing goods out of state, but isn't that really the point? it's been nice, as a consumer, to be able to avoid state sales tax, but those days are quickly coming to a close.
this seems to be just another example of bemoaning the fact that with the internet becoming ubiquitous, our business models need innovation. we need to start realizing that there is more to sell than just the goods themselves.. consumers base their purchases on far more than just the "bottom line", they return for value-added experience, which can include anything that one is imaginative (and innovative) enough to sell.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Stacy Mitchell on Oct 31, 2007 10:48 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's a terrible article
Posted by: Techubus
» RE: Also, to reply to Stacy
Posted by: Techubus
» RE: Also, to reply to Stacy
Posted by: jim_altman
» RE: Stacy Mitchell, Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Posted by: jmp3954
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ahmlco on Nov 1, 2007 1:09 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides, the lack of sales tax is on internet goods is pretty much balanced out by the fact that you have to pay shipping charges on them. As such, why should internet businesses (some of which are probably located in your state as well) be forced to operate at a disadvantage? Why should they effectively have to "double-tax" their goods in the form of taxes AND shipping?
This isn't a new argument, by the way. The government has always applied the same rules to mail order catalogs, and come up with the same answers. And Amazon is a "mail-order" business. They just don't kill trees to print a catalog.
I'm also sure that there are plenty of restaurants, gas stations, beauty parlors, contractors, plumbers, doctors, lawyers, clothing and shoe stores, furnature and appliance stores, and hundreds of other businesses on your community that are not impacted in any way whatsoever by the "magnitude of the public subsidy" given to Amazon, as Amazon can't provide those services.
Finally, point me to the store, stores, or even an entire mall in your community that has the selection--and prices--of Amazon, and I'll consider patronizing it. On the other hand, point me to the local store that offers something equally valuable, like face time, support, or service, and I'll go there instead.
But they have to PROVIDE that service, and not simply attempt to legislate away their competition.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why not?
Posted by: ohb0b
» RE: Why not?
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Why not?
Posted by: Stacy Mitchell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 1, 2007 2:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not mind paying taxes, nor do I oppose a tax increase. What I do oppose is any attitude of entitlement by any government or office holder to my wallet, the wholesale waste of tax revenue by various governments, or the assumption of debt without taxpayer approval. Borrow and spend is nothing more than delayed taxation.
I prefer to support local retailers that pay living wages and provide quality customer service. Since that is rarely the case, I will buy from Amazon and do so without any feelings of guilt.
If state and local governments are short of funds they can cut spending- starting with the massive waste that exists in every level of government that I have ever seen. After they get their house in order they can ask the voters/taxpayers for permission to raise taxes. Short of that they can suck on it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Joe on Nov 1, 2007 2:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Brick & Mortar
Posted by: Shehova
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 1, 2007 5:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nomorebs on Nov 1, 2007 6:54 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 1, 2007 7:31 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You like high taxes? Never met a person you didn't feel owed you something? Come to LA. We tax the hell out of people (16th in the nation, 2005), and we've got the educational, socio-economic, and infrastructure successes to show it!
Lubberly oftentimes, those taxes, in practice. Positutely, absotively, lubberly.
The only downside of paying taxes in LA: not much interest accrues in William Jefferson's freezer.
(ok, that was a stretch, what with his freezer being jammed up with the FBI's--federal--bribe money and all, but higher taxes can only solve the problems that arise from insufficient government revenue. the "deciders" we elect have to do decent, useful, ethical things with our tax dollars, also, or we have to vote them out.
...which doesn't happen very often in this state, at least until we can get them safely out of the state and into a federal pen. oh edwin, I'm so sorry you won't be able to run again.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VAGreen on Nov 1, 2007 8:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who shop at on-line retailers aren't entitled to special treatment. The free market does not mean that the government gives you a lot of stuff for free.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It requires an understanding of the Constitution, I suppose.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: They aren't. You're missing a very basic element
Posted by: Techubus
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bgeerdes on Nov 1, 2007 8:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They generally have to pay list price as well. Not having to pay sales taxes benefits Amazon a little but they also sell books for less to begin with. Which, funny enough, entices consumers to buy from them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gonzodex on Nov 1, 2007 9:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Tax avoidance, rather than savvy entrepreneurial spirit, is the key to the retailer's achievement."
Anyone who's followed Amazon's rise knows they've made very few missteps along the way. They're customer-friendly; the feedback provided by readers on thousands of products gives everyone a chance to find out what other people think before purchasing, the pricing is competitive, shipping is prompt. Personally, the time or two I've had an issue with a product Amazon's customer service has been absolutely stellar.
I'd say more than anything, it was 'savvy entrepreneurial spirit' that launched the company, and inventiveness and innovation that's kept them in front.
Seems like sour grapes - not to mention liberal propaganda - to attribute the success to lack of their paying sales taxes. If the gov't does decide to tax internet sales (which will be at least seven years it appears after the passage of the internet tax ban this week), any good business would deal with it - and thrive.
And to say it benefits Amazon is off-track; they wouldn't pay the taxes anyway - they'd simply pass them along to customers in the form of higher prices, like any business. And yet their prices would probably still be much lower than anything at retail.
I live in Oregon, which has NO sales tax, so this issue rarely hits my radar screen. A number of excellent points have already been raised in the comments here.
btw, I'm not conservative, but Libertarian, and embrace stances that both the right and left would be attracted to, but I agree that to say Amazon's lack of paying taxes is why they're so successful is specious and phony.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Specious Story Bends the Truth
Posted by: jim_altman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Nov 1, 2007 10:06 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- A brick-and-mortar retailer can never have the selection Amazon does. This is good for the consumer.
- Savings in time and fuel for millions of individual trips to the brick-and-mortar retailer(s). This is good for the environment.
- The government collects taxes from the shipping companies that handle the goods. The explosion in on-line retail has resulted in more shipping.
I too am frustrated at the media always framing tax cuts or absence of taxation as a "loss" of revenue to the government.
Here in Canada, the government currently has a budget surplus into the billions. The citizen is being ripped off. The government is not entitled to collect any more of my money than it needs, and should give back the extra it took.
Further, when I hear that the bulk of people receive income tax refunds, this also tells me that the government is getting a free loan from the citizenry that it repays every year without interest.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Absent facts
Posted by: jim_altman
» Here in Canada - tax thread drift
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urgelt on Nov 2, 2007 11:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I say nearly, because tax policies affecting the upper 1% of taxpayers are far more generous than the internet sales tax break, from the abolishment of the "death tax" (which affects nobody but the ultra-rich) and low, low capital gains tax rates, to a legal structure favorable to corporations who launder their profits through off-shore tax havens.
I will also point out that this internet "tax subsidy" is partly responsible for the rapid growth of internet commerce we have seen. Why should we care about that? Because internet commerce dramatically increases choice and competition. Without the subsidy, the growth of internet commerce would have proceeded at a far more glacial pace.
The simple truth is that having on-line alternatives to purely local stores is good for competition. It considerably increases the likelihood that you can find what you need and will pay a fair price for it; and the competition encourages local brick-and-mortar retail outlets to improve the appeal of their goods and prices. Encouraging growth in internet commerce was, and remains, a good policy for consumers.
As for the need for states to ramp up taxation to meet their programmatic needs, I will respectfully suggest that less socially regressive methods should be employed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You think %8 Sales tax is bad try %14
Posted by: Jamesberry
Comments are closed-
Posted by: art1851 on Nov 2, 2007 12:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, the title strongly implies that a specific retailer owes its success to some sort of questionable tax scheme RATHER THAN "savvy entrepreneurial spirit". As an earlier commentator pointed out, interstate "mail order" type businesses have existed for longer than anyone now living has been around. Interstate transactions of most kinds in our country have ALWAYS been exempt from state and local sales taxes. It has never been otherwise. The fact that an item is ordered over the internet instead of by mail out of the the old Sears catalog is a trivial difference. The trade-off with mail order has always been: sales tax vs. shipping charges.
This writer picks on one company, out of thousands of companies which engage in interstate commerce. He seems to want readers feeling that this company is doing something socially wrong, although not illegal. What caused him to pick on Amazon? Might it merely be that Amazon has been very successful and is thus widely known? Unless I missed it, he doesn't mention a single other company by name. Except Wal-Mart. As bad a social actor as Wal-Mart may have been, or is, it "plays by the rules" and charges sales tax. Are we then to conclude that Amazon is even worse that Wal-Mart?
The writer also fails to mention any bills or initiatives which someone who believes in "closing this loophole" might get behind, should they be so inclined, such as creation of a nationwide state sales tax clearing house. Does he want readers to do some particular thing, or just be mad at Amazon?
All sales taxes are regressive. They tax commerce, and are always paid by the buyer, so they are a drag on commerce. This is not necessarily bad; except the people who pay the tax are people who consume goods: people who need to buy cars, gasoline, refrigerators or books and CDs. Poor or middle income or affluent, they all pay the same tax for the same item. Again, not necessarily a bad thing; but it puts a proportionately greater burden on less affluent people: the goods consumed by the rich are a far smaller portion of their total income than is true for the less affluent. A wealthy person is far less likely to purchase a second yacht, than is a middle class family likely to need a second car.
If proportionality and social justice are to be considered with respect to the federal, state and local tax structures, I believe that the most viable solution to the financing of government has to lie in a reasonable, fair, progressive income tax.
Anything less is just arguing over the scraps.
Anything less just plays into the hands of the mean and selfish, antisocial forces that have held sway in this country since the unveiling of the "contract on America".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Afban on Nov 4, 2007 2:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell me, why am I supposed to feel bad about ordering things from Amazon?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hereoz on Nov 4, 2007 8:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Little too much approximating here, and until you can figure out what Amazon's income tax, to the feds and any state they have a presence, paid on the extra business they get from the interstate sales how can one judge the worth of your article?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rjgwood on Oct 30, 2007 2:47 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's talk about serious tax restructuring that will tax the wealthy in this country who haven't paid its fair share EVER in the tax structure, but has never had it so good as they do today.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» FAIR SHARE??
Posted by: gellero
» RE: FAIR SHARE??
Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: FAIR SHARE??
Posted by: thekidde
» Just curious
Posted by: xconservative
» RE: FAIR SHARE??
Posted by: xconservative
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nolsen311 on Oct 31, 2007 8:38 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
don't for a second think that state governments don't know about this, and aren't doing anything to change it. Washington, in addition to numerous other states, is signed on to be part of the streamlined sales tax initiative. this allows them to collect interstate sales taxes by reducing the burden of compliance, thus removing one of the arguments that has prevented the closing of this "loophole" previously.
yes, i'm aware that it's not truly an interstate tax, but a tax on state residents purchasing goods out of state, but isn't that really the point? it's been nice, as a consumer, to be able to avoid state sales tax, but those days are quickly coming to a close.
this seems to be just another example of bemoaning the fact that with the internet becoming ubiquitous, our business models need innovation. we need to start realizing that there is more to sell than just the goods themselves.. consumers base their purchases on far more than just the "bottom line", they return for value-added experience, which can include anything that one is imaginative (and innovative) enough to sell.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Stacy Mitchell on Oct 31, 2007 10:48 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's a terrible article
Posted by: Techubus
» RE: Also, to reply to Stacy
Posted by: Techubus
» RE: Also, to reply to Stacy
Posted by: jim_altman
» RE: Stacy Mitchell, Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Posted by: jmp3954
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ahmlco on Nov 1, 2007 1:09 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides, the lack of sales tax is on internet goods is pretty much balanced out by the fact that you have to pay shipping charges on them. As such, why should internet businesses (some of which are probably located in your state as well) be forced to operate at a disadvantage? Why should they effectively have to "double-tax" their goods in the form of taxes AND shipping?
This isn't a new argument, by the way. The government has always applied the same rules to mail order catalogs, and come up with the same answers. And Amazon is a "mail-order" business. They just don't kill trees to print a catalog.
I'm also sure that there are plenty of restaurants, gas stations, beauty parlors, contractors, plumbers, doctors, lawyers, clothing and shoe stores, furnature and appliance stores, and hundreds of other businesses on your community that are not impacted in any way whatsoever by the "magnitude of the public subsidy" given to Amazon, as Amazon can't provide those services.
Finally, point me to the store, stores, or even an entire mall in your community that has the selection--and prices--of Amazon, and I'll consider patronizing it. On the other hand, point me to the local store that offers something equally valuable, like face time, support, or service, and I'll go there instead.
But they have to PROVIDE that service, and not simply attempt to legislate away their competition.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why not?
Posted by: ohb0b
» RE: Why not?
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Why not?
Posted by: Stacy Mitchell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 1, 2007 2:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not mind paying taxes, nor do I oppose a tax increase. What I do oppose is any attitude of entitlement by any government or office holder to my wallet, the wholesale waste of tax revenue by various governments, or the assumption of debt without taxpayer approval. Borrow and spend is nothing more than delayed taxation.
I prefer to support local retailers that pay living wages and provide quality customer service. Since that is rarely the case, I will buy from Amazon and do so without any feelings of guilt.
If state and local governments are short of funds they can cut spending- starting with the massive waste that exists in every level of government that I have ever seen. After they get their house in order they can ask the voters/taxpayers for permission to raise taxes. Short of that they can suck on it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Joe on Nov 1, 2007 2:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Brick & Mortar
Posted by: Shehova
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 1, 2007 5:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nomorebs on Nov 1, 2007 6:54 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 1, 2007 7:31 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You like high taxes? Never met a person you didn't feel owed you something? Come to LA. We tax the hell out of people (16th in the nation, 2005), and we've got the educational, socio-economic, and infrastructure successes to show it!
Lubberly oftentimes, those taxes, in practice. Positutely, absotively, lubberly.
The only downside of paying taxes in LA: not much interest accrues in William Jefferson's freezer.
(ok, that was a stretch, what with his freezer being jammed up with the FBI's--federal--bribe money and all, but higher taxes can only solve the problems that arise from insufficient government revenue. the "deciders" we elect have to do decent, useful, ethical things with our tax dollars, also, or we have to vote them out.
...which doesn't happen very often in this state, at least until we can get them safely out of the state and into a federal pen. oh edwin, I'm so sorry you won't be able to run again.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VAGreen on Nov 1, 2007 8:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who shop at on-line retailers aren't entitled to special treatment. The free market does not mean that the government gives you a lot of stuff for free.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It requires an understanding of the Constitution, I suppose.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: They aren't. You're missing a very basic element
Posted by: Techubus
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bgeerdes on Nov 1, 2007 8:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They generally have to pay list price as well. Not having to pay sales taxes benefits Amazon a little but they also sell books for less to begin with. Which, funny enough, entices consumers to buy from them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gonzodex on Nov 1, 2007 9:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Tax avoidance, rather than savvy entrepreneurial spirit, is the key to the retailer's achievement."
Anyone who's followed Amazon's rise knows they've made very few missteps along the way. They're customer-friendly; the feedback provided by readers on thousands of products gives everyone a chance to find out what other people think before purchasing, the pricing is competitive, shipping is prompt. Personally, the time or two I've had an issue with a product Amazon's customer service has been absolutely stellar.
I'd say more than anything, it was 'savvy entrepreneurial spirit' that launched the company, and inventiveness and innovation that's kept them in front.
Seems like sour grapes - not to mention liberal propaganda - to attribute the success to lack of their paying sales taxes. If the gov't does decide to tax internet sales (which will be at least seven years it appears after the passage of the internet tax ban this week), any good business would deal with it - and thrive.
And to say it benefits Amazon is off-track; they wouldn't pay the taxes anyway - they'd simply pass them along to customers in the form of higher prices, like any business. And yet their prices would probably still be much lower than anything at retail.
I live in Oregon, which has NO sales tax, so this issue rarely hits my radar screen. A number of excellent points have already been raised in the comments here.
btw, I'm not conservative, but Libertarian, and embrace stances that both the right and left would be attracted to, but I agree that to say Amazon's lack of paying taxes is why they're so successful is specious and phony.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Specious Story Bends the Truth
Posted by: jim_altman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Nov 1, 2007 10:06 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- A brick-and-mortar retailer can never have the selection Amazon does. This is good for the consumer.
- Savings in time and fuel for millions of individual trips to the brick-and-mortar retailer(s). This is good for the environment.
- The government collects taxes from the shipping companies that handle the goods. The explosion in on-line retail has resulted in more shipping.
I too am frustrated at the media always framing tax cuts or absence of taxation as a "loss" of revenue to the government.
Here in Canada, the government currently has a budget surplus into the billions. The citizen is being ripped off. The government is not entitled to collect any more of my money than it needs, and should give back the extra it took.
Further, when I hear that the bulk of people receive income tax refunds, this also tells me that the government is getting a free loan from the citizenry that it repays every year without interest.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Absent facts
Posted by: jim_altman
» Here in Canada - tax thread drift
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urgelt on Nov 2, 2007 11:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I say nearly, because tax policies affecting the upper 1% of taxpayers are far more generous than the internet sales tax break, from the abolishment of the "death tax" (which affects nobody but the ultra-rich) and low, low capital gains tax rates, to a legal structure favorable to corporations who launder their profits through off-shore tax havens.
I will also point out that this internet "tax subsidy" is partly responsible for the rapid growth of internet commerce we have seen. Why should we care about that? Because internet commerce dramatically increases choice and competition. Without the subsidy, the growth of internet commerce would have proceeded at a far more glacial pace.
The simple truth is that having on-line alternatives to purely local stores is good for competition. It considerably increases the likelihood that you can find what you need and will pay a fair price for it; and the competition encourages local brick-and-mortar retail outlets to improve the appeal of their goods and prices. Encouraging growth in internet commerce was, and remains, a good policy for consumers.
As for the need for states to ramp up taxation to meet their programmatic needs, I will respectfully suggest that less socially regressive methods should be employed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You think %8 Sales tax is bad try %14
Posted by: Jamesberry
Comments are closed-
Posted by: art1851 on Nov 2, 2007 12:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, the title strongly implies that a specific retailer owes its success to some sort of questionable tax scheme RATHER THAN "savvy entrepreneurial spirit". As an earlier commentator pointed out, interstate "mail order" type businesses have existed for longer than anyone now living has been around. Interstate transactions of most kinds in our country have ALWAYS been exempt from state and local sales taxes. It has never been otherwise. The fact that an item is ordered over the internet instead of by mail out of the the old Sears catalog is a trivial difference. The trade-off with mail order has always been: sales tax vs. shipping charges.
This writer picks on one company, out of thousands of companies which engage in interstate commerce. He seems to want readers feeling that this company is doing something socially wrong, although not illegal. What caused him to pick on Amazon? Might it merely be that Amazon has been very successful and is thus widely known? Unless I missed it, he doesn't mention a single other company by name. Except Wal-Mart. As bad a social actor as Wal-Mart may have been, or is, it "plays by the rules" and charges sales tax. Are we then to conclude that Amazon is even worse that Wal-Mart?
The writer also fails to mention any bills or initiatives which someone who believes in "closing this loophole" might get behind, should they be so inclined, such as creation of a nationwide state sales tax clearing house. Does he want readers to do some particular thing, or just be mad at Amazon?
All sales taxes are regressive. They tax commerce, and are always paid by the buyer, so they are a drag on commerce. This is not necessarily bad; except the people who pay the tax are people who consume goods: people who need to buy cars, gasoline, refrigerators or books and CDs. Poor or middle income or affluent, they all pay the same tax for the same item. Again, not necessarily a bad thing; but it puts a proportionately greater burden on less affluent people: the goods consumed by the rich are a far smaller portion of their total income than is true for the less affluent. A wealthy person is far less likely to purchase a second yacht, than is a middle class family likely to need a second car.
If proportionality and social justice are to be considered with respect to the federal, state and local tax structures, I believe that the most viable solution to the financing of government has to lie in a reasonable, fair, progressive income tax.
Anything less is just arguing over the scraps.
Anything less just plays into the hands of the mean and selfish, antisocial forces that have held sway in this country since the unveiling of the "contract on America".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Afban on Nov 4, 2007 2:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell me, why am I supposed to feel bad about ordering things from Amazon?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hereoz on Nov 4, 2007 8:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Little too much approximating here, and until you can figure out what Amazon's income tax, to the feds and any state they have a presence, paid on the extra business they get from the interstate sales how can one judge the worth of your article?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Tax the Corporations and the Rich or Take Draconian Cuts -- the Decision Is Ours
Fury at Wall St. Banks Fuels Public Action for Move Your Money Campaign
Why Congress Wants You to Shun Your Local Bookstore and Shop at Amazon Instead




