Amazon and the sales tax question

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

(BTW, in those states that Amazon collects sales tax? They still easily undercut the in-state B&M retailers.)

Sometimes. I live in such a state and the bulk of my purchases are from local B&M stores, because their prices undercut Amazon's.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There's what? 300 million or so people in the US? If every one of those fails to pay $10 a year in sales tax, that's an income of $3bn that the government is being deprived of. That's serious money!

A mere pittance compared to what they waste on foreign policy.

[unkilbeeg]

For me, prices at places like Amazon are competitive with B&M, but not overwhelmingly so.

What matters to me is that I can find what I want online, whereas it's much less easy to find what I want locally. Brick and mortar stores have limitations on what they can stock (or are willing to stock.) It makes sense to only stock what will move quickly, but fairly often that's not what I'm after.

[QuantumIguana]

Sales tax doesn't go to foreign policy. It goes to the state and local level, in other words to "small government".

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Sales tax doesn't go to foreign policy. It goes to the state and local level, in other words to "small government".

I know; but I'm talking about government in general. I lump all forms of government into the same group and don't really care if they lose tax dollars of any kind - sales, income, business, etc; considering what they waste.

[QuantumIguana]

[fratermus]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If every one of those fails to pay $10 a year in sales tax, that's an income of $3bn that the government is being deprived of.

Sounds like an action plan to me. Starve the Beast.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fratermus

Sounds like an action plan to me. Starve the Beast.

Fine, as long as you don't expect the fire department to help you if your house catches fire, or to have roads to drive your car on, or schools to educate your children in, or a postal service to deliver your mail, or any of the other services that taxes pay for. Anyone who decides not to pay tax, is presumably opting out of the use of every service which taxes fund.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Fine, as long as you don't expect the fire department to help you if your house catches fire, or to have roads to drive your car on, or schools to educate your children in, or a postal service to deliver your mail, or any of the other services that taxes pay for. Anyone who decides not to pay tax, is presumably opting out of the use of every service which taxes fund.

They still need a postal service? Oh, I forgot about junk mail.

[fratermus]

I'll let it drop after this.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Fine, as long as you don't expect the fire department to help you if your house catches fire, or to have roads to drive your car on, or schools to educate your children in, or a postal service to deliver your mail, or any of the other services that taxes pay for.

Counterexample: private schools and fire services, toll roads built and financed by private companies, and delivery services that will bring packages to your door in brown trucks.

BTW, the USPS doesn't really work in your example. It's more of a government-approved monopoly on private letter handling and is not tax-supported in any meaningful sense.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Anyone who decides not to pay tax, is presumably opting out of the use of every service which taxes fund.

An alternative interpretation: they would to choose the vendor[s] of the same or similar services, free from coercion, grants of monopoly, and threat of imprisonment and/or confiscation of property.

When I wanted a wife I looked and found a mutually-agreeable arrangement. It was a critical, life-affecting decision but somehow I did not require taxes extracted from me to fund the search for and assignment of same.


Yours in friendly-if-offtopic conversation, etc, etc,
your friendly neighborhood anarcho-capitalist.

[Apache]

Counterexample: private schools and fire services

If you have ever lived where those are available, you would pay a lot more than what you pay in taxes. And would you want a private police force?
Apache

[hwlester]

Originally Posted by fratermus

When I wanted a wife I looked and found a mutually-agreeable arrangement. It was a critical, life-affecting decision but somehow I did not require taxes extracted from me to fund the search for and assignment of same.

Now there's a thought... a government run dating service funded by taxes... Forget socialized healthcare! As you say though, they'd probably assign you a spouse.

[BenG]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

A mere pittance compared to what they waste on foreign policy.

These are state and local taxes, so I doubt there's very much spent on foreign policy.
And that $3 billion is divided between 50 states and even more local governments. (BTW aren't "billion" and "trillion" used differently in the UK?)

[hwlester]

Originally Posted by BenG

These are state and local taxes, so I doubt there's very much spent on foreign policy.
And that $3 billion is divided between 50 states and even more local governments. (BTW aren't "billion" and "trillion" used differently in the UK?)

I'm not sure about current usage, but I think "billion" and "trillion" were US inventions. I've always heard them referred to as "thousand million" and "million million" respectively on British TV.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by hwlester

I'm not sure about current usage, but I think "billion" and "trillion" were US inventions. I've always heard them referred to as "thousand million" and "million million" respectively on British TV.

Originally, British English used billion for million million (and occasionally the European milliard for thousand million), but the US use of billion for thousand million has been used instead for many years [decades] now instead.

Edit: These are called the long and short scales.