Taxing of Internet Purchases

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yes, it's a subsidiary. What's your point? The new law includes such subsidiaries (source). So unless they're shutting A9 (and A to Z, which is where my friend was offered), then cutting off the affiliates does nothing to change their status under the new law and they're screwing the affiliates over for now reason other than to grab attention. So my point stands.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Yes, it's a subsidiary. What's your point?

More or less what CP wrote - I'm sure Amazon's attorneys analyzed the law in relation to Quill v. North Dakota (which I really should get around to reading, lol), and are advising that while the "affiliates" portion of the law is going to be difficult to get around, Amazon has a chance of winning on the "subsidiaries" issue. Hence, they cut all ties to CA affiliates and are not collecting sales tax in CA right now.

I'm not sure who reports the sales tax on their CA forms, though everything I've read states that it is nigh impossible to enforce. Personally I pay plenty of sales tax, which is ridiculously high even after the expiration of the 2-year temporary increase. It is a fundamental philosophic problem, I suppose, that Dems see tax increases as equaling more revenue. Raising taxes actually drives businesses and jobs away, thus leading to lower income taxes overall and a greater burden on the CA economy due to the unemployed.

Again, Best Buy and Target need to lower their prices to compete, plain and simple. When books, cell phones, movies, electronics and groceries are cheaper to buy on the internet (even WITH the sales tax added), Best Buy and Target need to step it up. The only thing going for the brick and mortar stores are the convenience of having the item NOW, and people will pay a few extra dollars for that. But a FEW extra dollars, not like $10-12 more for a blu-ray, or $100 extra for a television.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

Again, Best Buy and Target need to lower their prices to compete, plain and simple. When books, cell phones, movies, electronics and groceries are cheaper to buy on the internet (even WITH the sales tax added), Best Buy and Target need to step it up. The only thing going for the brick and mortar stores are the convenience of having the item NOW, and people will pay a few extra dollars for that. But a FEW extra dollars, not like $10-12 more for a blu-ray, or $100 extra for a television.

I disagree with this, purely on the basis that Target and Best Buy don't seem to be hurting. While they may not be getting your Blu Ray business, they are obviously selling quite a number of them

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I disagree with this, purely on the basis that Target and Best Buy don't seem to be hurting. While they may not be getting your Blu Ray business, they are obviously selling quite a number of them

According to them they are hurting (or, at least that overall sales are down)-- which is the reason for this law being passed in the first place. Their argument essentially is that anyone buying off of the internet gets an automatic discount because they don't pay sales tax, and that they simply cannot compete with that. I think that's a load of BS.

Certain items are keeping them going -- people generally want to buy an iPad or a smartphone from a brick-and-mortar store, for instance, or if they HAVE to get a video game on release date they'll reserve it at Best Buy or Gamestop rather than wait for mail delivery. See i.e. the article below:

http://www.startribune.com/business/123809429.html