SCOTUS Reverses Itself - Online Buyers Must Pay Sale Tax 2 2

[zosocane]

Just now, darkstar said:

Amazon itself already does this, but the third party sellers that use Amazon do not. This is bad for Amazon because it has the potential to cripple small, independent sellers that use their site and also the buyers who use these third party sellers, since purchase price is going to increase.

Thank you, that makes sense!  (I rarely use Amazon.)

[1Cool]

14 minutes ago, darkstar said:

There is nothing to see above. You can look at Amazon's stock price over the past few hours for further confirmation after reading my earlier explanation.

It has lost 1% over the day and done almost nothing the last couple hours..

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

9 minutes ago, darkstar said:

Amazon itself already does this, but the third party sellers that use Amazon do not. This is bad for Amazon because it has the potential to cripple small, independent sellers that use their site and also the buyers who use these third party sellers, since purchase price is going to increase.

Anti-competitive, and a tax hike on the consumer, considering the present SCOTUS Ruling, is a benefit.

Consider compliance costs to small business,...and while there is the "free" fed software option, it does not work, does not address compliance collection, and distribution of same....... those compliance costs are already in place at Amazon/Walmart/Ebay etc., and 3rd. party sellers would jump on that bandwagon in a heartbeat to avoid the compliance cost aspect. It is a win. Even Amazon changed from an "I don't like you" stance to an "I like you" position, joining Walmart/Ebay, etc., because the giants will all be on a level playing field, and will also be able to recoup compliance costs. I could go on and on and on...but that is a short answer. Consider that the medical insurance providers have already been thru these scenarios, especially DME purchases and Medicare/Medicaid DME purchases and taxation of same, and pharma purchases.

it will be fine. I know next to nothing...scratch that.... I know nothing about investing or stock markets, etc., but I am quite certain the stock drops for the Amazons/Walmarts/EBays etc. after the SCOTUS decision is due to a total misunderstanding of the benefits vs. risks. 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

1 hour ago, FlyingDonut said:

Move to Delaware, Montana, Oregon, or New Hampshire. Problem solved.

BTW, be nice to Alaska.... it has an effect on Canada.

[darkstar]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Anti-competitive, and a tax hike on the consumer, considering the present SCOTUS Ruling, is a benefit.

Consider compliance costs to small business,...and while there is the "free" fed software option, it does not work, does not address compliance collection, and distribution of same....... those compliance costs are already in place at Amazon/Walmart/Ebay etc., and 3rd. party sellers would jump on that bandwagon in a heartbeat to avoid the compliance cost aspect. It is a win. Even Amazon changed from an "I don't like you" stance to an "I like you" position, joining Walmart/Ebay, etc., because the giants will all be on a level playing field, and will also be able to recoup compliance costs. I could go on and on and on...but that is a short answer. Consider that the medical insurance providers have already been thru these scenarios, especially DME purchases and Medicare/Medicaid DME purchases and taxation of same, and pharma purchases.

it will be fine. I know next to nothing...scratch that.... I know nothing about investing or stock markets, etc., but I am quite certain the stock drops for the Amazons/Walmarts/EBays etc. after the SCOTUS decision is due to a total misunderstanding of the benefits vs. risks. 

Amazon changed their stance because they were already responsible for sales tax after establishing distribution centers in every state. 

[darkstar]

1 hour ago, 1Cool said:

It has lost 1% over the day and done almost nothing the last couple hours..

Compare the performance of online retailers to the big box stores...lol at thinking this decision has not impacted the market.

Edited June 21, 2018 by darkstar

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Just now, darkstar said:

Amazon changed their stance because they were already responsible for sales tax after establishing distribution centers in every state. 

That does not change the reality that it is not bad for Amazon. I guess we will wait and see. Note that back in last Nov., and again in late March/early April, after Amazon was delving into med provider scenarios, that triggered there  "hey, this could be a good thing" position. Again, compliance costs...it would not be a mere couple of thousand for mom/pop/small business enterprise. I think you are misunderstanding my post. You are now saying "..well, yeah, but that is because....". So, is it or is it not a benefit to the big boys? Amazon?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

2 minutes ago, darkstar said:

Compare the performance of online retailers to the big box stores...lol at thinking this decision has impacted the market.

I think you need to make up your mind.... no offence intended at all, but it is confusing what your position is.

[FlyingDonut]

1 hour ago, darkstar said:

This is not good news for Amazon.

Amazon was strongly behind the push for this. This ruling doesn't really affect Amazon's core business as states will (most likely) punt the small sellers limit and hit bigger sellers. Amazon is already set up for it. Wayfair and other direct competitors to Amazon get crushed.

Edited June 21, 2018 by FlyingDonut

[darkstar]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

That does not change the reality that it is not bad for Amazon. I guess we will wait and see. Note that back in last Nov., and again in late March/early April, after Amazon was delving into med provider scenarios, that triggered there  "hey, this could be a good thing" position. Again, compliance costs...it would not be a mere couple of thousand for mom/pop/small business enterprise. I think you are misunderstanding my post. You are now saying "..well, yeah, but that is because....". So, is it or is it not a benefit to the big boys? Amazon?

Except it is absolutely bad for Amazon. But to what extent remains unclear.

Third party sellers on Amazon don't currently pay sales tax for transactions with buyers who reside in states where the seller has no physical presence. That is a competitive advantage for the third party seller because they can undercut the businesses where the local buyer resides. Many people buy things through Amazon's third party sellers because they don't have to pay the sales tax.

Depending on how and to what extent individual states now implement sales tax for online sales these third party sellers have the potential to face a tremendous burden. They are going to lose their competitive advantage over local brick and mortar stores because they will now be responsible for collecting sales tax. And their pre-tax prices are going to increase overall because they are going to see an increase in operating costs as a result of having to account for the sales tax. Because there is no flat tax and the seller wouldn't be dealing with a single entity the amount of paperwork and man-hours could be tremendous.

I'm not sure why you are confused. Look at the market today. Retailers with a primary online sales platform are down across the board. Retailers with a primary brick and mortar sales platform are up. 

 

[darkstar]

9 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:

Amazon was strongly behind the push for this. This ruling doesn't really affect Amazon's core business as states will (most likely) punt the small sellers limit and hit bigger sellers. Amazon is already set up for it. Wayfair and other direct competitors to Amazon get crushed.

Amazon isn't behind this. They've tolerated it because they are already on the hook for online first party sales tax because of the proliferation of their supply chain. You are underestimating how much of Amazon's business is from third party sellers and how potentially damaging this could be to those sellers. The market would have seen a tremendous shift today if it was currently known what the plans were at the state level now that they are free to impose sales tax to online sellers. Why you think that the states will punt the smaller sellers is beyond my understanding. It amounts to free money for the state governments that they believe they are already owed and it comes at the expense of citizens (the out-of-state sellers) who aren't in their voting districts.   

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

50 minutes ago, darkstar said:

Amazon isn't behind this. They've tolerated it because they are already on the hook for online first party sales tax because of the proliferation of their supply chain. You are underestimating how much of Amazon's business is from third party sellers and how potentially damaging this could be to those sellers. The market would have seen a tremendous shift today if it was currently known what the plans were at the state level now that they are free to impose sales tax to online sellers. Why you think that the states will punt the smaller sellers is beyond my understanding. It amounts to free money for the state governments that they believe they are already owed and it comes at the expense of citizens (the out-of-state sellers) who aren't in their voting districts.   

Um, no.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

51 minutes ago, darkstar said:

Amazon isn't behind this. They've tolerated it because they are already on the hook for online first party sales tax because of the proliferation of their supply chain. You are underestimating how much of Amazon's business is from third party sellers and how potentially damaging this could be to those sellers. The market would have seen a tremendous shift today if it was currently known what the plans were at the state level now that they are free to impose sales tax to online sellers. Why you think that the states will punt the smaller sellers is beyond my understanding. It amounts to free money for the state governments that they believe they are already owed and it comes at the expense of citizens (the out-of-state sellers) who aren't in their voting districts.   

Um, no. But, no harm no foul. SCOTUS does not care what you think. BTW, your positions were already submitted and argued. Read the Decision, and submitted documents.

[darkstar]

9 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Um, no.

No, what I wrote is correct. 

And having just recognized your username once again, our interaction on this forum has come to an end. 

[jaybuck43]

2 hours ago, zosocane said:

Remember that the POTUS has to sign whatever legislation Congress passes that would fix this.  And Jeff Bezos will now regret buying the Washington Post because Trump will do him (and, by extension, Amazon) zero favors at this point.

Amazon WANTS this.  This kills smaller competitors who benefit by not having a presence in the state.  I.e. if I'm buying a flat screen TV from Fry's, which does not have a B&M presence in NJ, vs. Amazon (which does) I can "save" the 6.625% sales tax (which may be 7% by the time I buy it, since NJ is looking to re-raise the Sales Tax) by buying from Fry's instead.  Now the small guy HAS to collect tax, negating the savings that either would have brought them parity to Amazon, or given them a slight price advantage, and Amazon can use its scale to crush the little guy on price.  

[darkstar]

33 minutes ago, jaybuck43 said:

Amazon WANTS this.  This kills smaller competitors who benefit by not having a presence in the state.  I.e. if I'm buying a flat screen TV from Fry's, which does not have a B&M presence in NJ, vs. Amazon (which does) I can "save" the 6.625% sales tax (which may be 7% by the time I buy it, since NJ is looking to re-raise the Sales Tax) by buying from Fry's instead.  Now the small guy HAS to collect tax, negating the savings that either would have brought them parity to Amazon, or given them a slight price advantage, and Amazon can use its scale to crush the little guy on price.  

No they absolutely do not want this. Over 50% of their business is from third party sellers who do not currently pay sales tax for transactions with out-of-state buyers. Their entire marketplace is now at risk depending on how this is handled at the state level. Amazon wants a flat, uniform tax rate that would put no undue burden on their marketplace sellers. 

[jaybuck43]

8 minutes ago, darkstar said:

No they absolutely do not want this. Over 50% of their business is from third party sellers who do not currently pay sales tax for transactions with out-of-state buyers. Their entire marketplace is now at risk depending on how this is handled at the state level. Amazon wants a flat, uniform tax rate that would put no undue burden on their marketplace sellers. 

:Bangs head against wall: where did you get this #FakeNews?  18%. Third Party Sellers account for 18% of total sales.

[darkstar]

14 minutes ago, jaybuck43 said:

:Bangs head against wall: where did you get this #FakeNews?  18%. Third Party Sellers account for 18% of total sales.

Uh, no they don't. How many sources do you want?

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-pulled-into-another-sales-tax-fight-as-states-go-after-third-party-sellers/

https://www.feedbackexpress.com/amazon-1029528-new-sellers-year-plus-stats/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/259782/third-party-seller-share-of-amazon-platform/

https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-amazon-sellers-can-profit-4143331

Bezos confirms it himself in letter to shareholders:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000119312518121161/d456916dex991.htm

Edited June 21, 2018 by darkstar

[jaybuck43]

1 minute ago, darkstar said:

Uh, no they don't. How many sources do you want?

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-pulled-into-another-sales-tax-fight-as-states-go-after-third-party-sellers/

https://www.feedbackexpress.com/amazon-1029528-new-sellers-year-plus-stats/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/259782/third-party-seller-share-of-amazon-platform/

https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-amazon-sellers-can-profit-4143331

 

That's UNIT sales.  Selling 5 million $1 tchotchkes is great, but it's only $5 million.  No investor cares how many UNITS they move, they care about the revenue.  3PS accounted for $9 billion of sales in last quarter, aka 18% of SALES (revenue).  

[darkstar]

9 minutes ago, jaybuck43 said:

That's UNIT sales.  Selling 5 million $1 tchotchkes is great, but it's only $5 million.  No investor cares how many UNITS they move, they care about the revenue.  3PS accounted for $9 billion of sales in last quarter, aka 18% of SALES (revenue).  

I see no source, nor does that change the discussion at hand. Amazon's marketplace is in danger of failing depending on legislation at the state level. That is not good for business. And taking on the function/ability to collect the taxes on behalf of their sellers opens them up to tremendous liability, which thus far they have been reluctant to do. You can look at last fall's FBA amnesty as evidence of that.