U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-11-2011, 01:22 PM
 
2,311 posts, read 2,886,695 times
Reputation: 1217

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by evergraystate View Post
Well, what did you think would happen when CA sends way more tax revenue to to the federal gov than it receives back.
Do yourself a favor and dig deeper than infographics...
To wet your taste buds.. if more people retire in a state than another ... that still will appear to receive alot more 'federal dollars' than the other state .. If more federal workers are located in a state than another .. i.e - DC (DUH) .. that state will receive more federal dollars than another...

What the infographic says w/o such qualitative information and analysis :


Such forms of garbage data turn viral now-a-days in no time... It's the intended purpose.. No one cares to do critical thinking anymore.. and modern day information is suited as such... People just want to make quick jabs, find useless data w/o analysis that confirms to their bias, and when all else fails call people names.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-11-2011, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,476 posts, read 17,438,952 times
Reputation: 4321
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy View Post
Many of about 25,000 affiliates in California, especially larger ones with dozens of employees, are likely to leave the state, said Rebecca Madigan, executive director of trade group Performance Marketing Assn. The affiliates combined paid $152 million in state income taxes last year, she pointed out.
Right, as I said, there is going to be no noticeably impact on the states economy. To confirm this, just look at NY which did the same thing already.

Most of the affiliates will generate revenue in other ways, some may leave, some may stop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 02:03 PM
 
2,311 posts, read 2,886,695 times
Reputation: 1217
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Right, as I said, there is going to be no noticeably impact on the states economy. To confirm this, just look at NY which did the same thing already.

Most of the affiliates will generate revenue in other ways, some may leave, some may stop.
$152 million is half the revenue the clowns thought they were going to get by creating the tax in the first place. The $300 million wouldn't have had any notable impact .. It was understandably going to be $0 or (negative) impact. They pursued it anyway.. why? because California's govt. likes being mroons.. Given that the budget is based on this idiotic sum.. I would say they probably are arse out of $300 (revenue they will not receive) - $452 million dollars (adding on the potential extra revenue ($152million income tax) that will disappear.. not accounting for the resultant other economic fallout).. It will have an impact and later cuts will reflect that.. As for your NY reference, link to source data proving it or keep your baseless claims out on the discussion.. you're already 0/1 .. working on 0/2 incorrect statements w/ no backing data.

Last edited by yeahthatguy; 07-11-2011 at 02:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,476 posts, read 17,438,952 times
Reputation: 4321
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy View Post
$152 million is half the revenue the clowns thought they were going to get by creating the tax in the first place.
.
They aren't going to lose $150 million in revenue, most of the affiliates will generate revenue by alternative means. This is not to mention that the $150 million is likely made up, there is no way to get that information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Paso Robles, CA
63 posts, read 97,810 times
Reputation: 32
No one has brought up yet the obvious fact that this issue (Amazon cancelling its 25,000 CA affiliates) falls squarely in the lap of Amazon.com. For years they have been dodging a bullet. They've always been required to collect the sales tax for in-state purchases. Only when they are now required to start collecting use tax do they have a tantrum.

Notice, they are still doing business in the state of California, therefore they will still be required to collect CA sales and use taxes for any purchases that I make whether from them or an affiliate outside the state of CA. For the affiliates in CA they would have collected the sales taxes anyway. So the question is, why did they feel the need to punish small businesses residing within the state of CA (and other states)?

If they felt so strongly about this tax law, why not pull ALL business out of CA by blocking IP addresses originating within the state from accessing their website? Answer: they still want to do business here. Amazon cutting off affiliates was a petty move meant to damage small businesses. It makes no sense. Of course those affiliates probably shouldn't have all their eggs in the Amazon basket, either.

Maybe there's a business opportunity for a startup to pick up all the small companies dropped by Amazon. I see 25,000 potential clients in CA and another 8,000 in Illinois. I'm sure someone in SV is already on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Police State
1,472 posts, read 2,027,234 times
Reputation: 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoNative View Post

If they felt so strongly about this tax law, why not pull ALL business out of CA by blocking IP addresses originating within the state from accessing their website?
What does this have to do with anything? When I go on trips and buy things in another state, I don't recall being charged sales taxes in CA. We're trying to collect taxes that we're aren't legally entitled to. We're cutting the nose off to spite the face which is so typical of CA government nowadays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Paso Robles, CA
63 posts, read 97,810 times
Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang View Post
What does this have to do with anything? When I go on trips and buy things in another state, I don't recall being charged sales taxes in CA. We're trying to collect taxes that we're aren't legally entitled to. We're cutting the nose off to spite the face which is so typical of CA government nowadays.
The statement you quoted was pointing out the fact that Amazon is frustrated by having to comply with the law. A law in which they are now complying by collecting CA sales tax even on out of state purchases. They were attempting to change public policy by threatening to cut off their business association with CA affiliates, which they did. Why did they feel the need to punish small businesses. If they wanted to make a point they could have pulled all of their business from CA, but they didn't, they still do business in CA. They were only harming smaller business, not themselves.

As for your comment, which has nothing to do with the quote, the law has been on the tax books since 1 July 1935.

Any purchases you make out of state and bring back into California to use you are to pay CA sales tax on (thus 'Use Tax').

You have always been just as required to pay this use tax as any other tax, it's just difficult to enforce.

Beginning in this last decade (2003 I believe) there has been a location on your 540 CA State Income Tax form asking you to declare all purchases made out of state and brought back into CA. Just because you ignored it doesn't mean that you weren't supposed to pay it.

All states with Sales Tax (45 of 'em) have Use Tax laws.

The issue has been argued in the SCOTUS several times over the last 70 years, and the Supreme Court has always leaned toward the rights of states to collect these taxes. The most recent that I know of is Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 US 298, 307-08 (1992)

That answers your "collect taxes we aren't legally entitled to" statement. Until SCOTUS specifically denies the internet as not fulfilling the Federal Due Process and Commerce Clauses these taxes may be collected as upheld by the United States Supreme Court.

What creates a "nexus" is the question. Quill v ND specifically states that a company does not need to have a physical location within the state to have a nexus. Advertising (by direct marketing) fulfilled the Due Process clause.That is where the article in (not terribly) Critical Thinker was misleading. Either they didn't do their homework or they are attempting to incite Conservative ire against the state of California. If it's the former, then they aren't too 'critical'. If the latter then they are idiots. Either way, they have no credibility as journalists. Back to the nexus question, when I am shopping on Amazon and it recommends a product held by an affiliate (now in another state), it is in effect directly marketing to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 05:44 PM
 
2,311 posts, read 2,886,695 times
Reputation: 1217
Listen .. No one is going to pay any stupid use tax..
No one is either going to voluntarily cite the tax on items they bought out of the state or online ...
Why? Because people are taxed enough....

And when people say enough is enough... they find alternative means to make things fair ...
They take action.. You can yap about all the case law, laws, etc all you want. We are taxed enough... Amazon is taxed enough. People have been taking action... Amazon did some more.. In the end the only people suffering are the residents of a greedy state like CA who are tied to income from Amazon and greedy California. Me, I'm going to keep buying my products from Amazon (maybe even more) now .. and avoiding as much taxation as I can when I feel I am improperly taxed.. The majority do this and it makes perfect sense.

If you were to stop all economic activity today ... w/ the structure of taxes we have.. they'd tax all the wealth and money out of the world overtime...
They make enough meat on income tax .. then you get taxed to high hell everytime you spend money...

*boots computer
*buys stuff online
No sales tax
*waves middle finger

"When the going gets tough, the tough get going"
(end of story)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 06:30 PM
 
Location: Police State
1,472 posts, read 2,027,234 times
Reputation: 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoNative View Post
The statement you quoted was pointing out the fact that Amazon is frustrated by having to comply with the law. A law in which they are now complying by collecting CA sales tax even on out of state purchases. They were attempting to change public policy by threatening to cut off their business association with CA affiliates, which they did. Why did they feel the need to punish small businesses. If they wanted to make a point they could have pulled all of their business from CA, but they didn't, they still do business in CA. They were only harming smaller business, not themselves.

As for your comment, which has nothing to do with the quote, the law has been on the tax books since 1 July 1935.

Any purchases you make out of state and bring back into California to use you are to pay CA sales tax on (thus 'Use Tax').

You have always been just as required to pay this use tax as any other tax, it's just difficult to enforce.

Beginning in this last decade (2003 I believe) there has been a location on your 540 CA State Income Tax form asking you to declare all purchases made out of state and brought back into CA. Just because you ignored it doesn't mean that you weren't supposed to pay it.

All states with Sales Tax (45 of 'em) have Use Tax laws.

The issue has been argued in the SCOTUS several times over the last 70 years, and the Supreme Court has always leaned toward the rights of states to collect these taxes. The most recent that I know of is Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 US 298, 307-08 (1992)

That answers your "collect taxes we aren't legally entitled to" statement. Until SCOTUS specifically denies the internet as not fulfilling the Federal Due Process and Commerce Clauses these taxes may be collected as upheld by the United States Supreme Court.

What creates a "nexus" is the question. Quill v ND specifically states that a company does not need to have a physical location within the state to have a nexus. Advertising (by direct marketing) fulfilled the Due Process clause.That is where the article in (not terribly) Critical Thinker was misleading. Either they didn't do their homework or they are attempting to incite Conservative ire against the state of California. If it's the former, then they aren't too 'critical'. If the latter then they are idiots. Either way, they have no credibility as journalists. Back to the nexus question, when I am shopping on Amazon and it recommends a product held by an affiliate (now in another state), it is in effect directly marketing to me.
It's a shame you went through the trouble of pulling all of that up because the legalese you're citing is just as unenforceable as the use tax. All CA's cash grab is doing is putting people out of work and raising the cost of goods on lower income earners.

Once again, an attempt to punish "The Man" comes back on the average, everyday consumer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 06:31 PM
 
Location: Police State
1,472 posts, read 2,027,234 times
Reputation: 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
most of the affiliates will generate revenue by alternative means.
And what means would those be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top