"Judge Bransten basically shot down all of the company's claims that New York state was picking on Amazon because it needed the dough."
RIght, if we didn't need the dough we wouldn't have our hand in your pocket.
@jon - she feels fine.
@ac - Re: Tea Party? Posted Tuesday 13th January 2009 11:38 GMT
No, really. They're just asking (demanding) that Amazon be their tax collector; just like they require local stores. First Amazon...then everyone else.
@Mike Groombridge - Not really as every one would then be forced to shop from REAL shops and spend they money in state hence more money for the state government. see the problem here.
This would be funny if any "REAL" store actually had the selection that's available from Amazon.
Try naming one store...just one will do....
@C. Nelson - New Yorkers who are choosing Amazon, in large part, to *avoid* the hefty sales tax they would pay if they went to a local retailer.
I suspect that if the federal gubmint set the "internet sales tax" to the minimum state sales tax so that every company had a maximum of 50 tax rates to worry about this would be a lot easier. Unfortunately, with a bazillion tax rates all over the country for differing types of merchandise this would be a nightmare for any online corporation no matter how large and would instantly force a sizeable increase in prices. Amazon's big advantage is that they HAVE no storefront and can thus offer a much wider selection of merchandise for sale across all state borders.
Anyway, all those local tax avoiders are supposed to be paying their "use taxes".