 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.137.109.144
"It's horribly unfair that B&M stores start out at a ~10% disadvantage while trying to compete."
What is "online shopping" but another way of saying "mail order"?
Mail order has been with us nearly since the founding of our country. Benjamin Franklin is credited with producing the first mail order catalog along with the first mail order guarantee: Those persons who live remote, by sending their orders and money to B. Franklin may depend on the same justice if present."
Mail order was kicked into high gear in the late 19th century first by Montgomery Ward and later by Sears, Roebuck & Co. These were the icons, but throughout the 20th century, there would be thousands of mail order companies both large and small. Some with catalogs, others that were more specialized and only conducted business through advertisements in magazines.
Mail order was everywhere. And the laws were the same as they are now; mail order companies only collected and paid sales taxes for sales in those states where they had a presence. Sales taxes were not collected on sales originating from other states.
And so-called "B&M's" seemed to thrive and I don't recall there being any particular outrage back then about those evil "mail order" companies.
Now people call it "online shopping" and scream "How unfair to those poor B&M's!"
Oh, and "B&M" is a mindfuck too. Unless you're just a small operation working out of your garage or spare bedroom, what do you think the warehouses the online sellers use to store the goods they sell are made out of? Paper mache?
So the whole argument is framed disingenuously. It's not "B&M vs. online," it's "local retailer vs. mail order retailer," which has been with us long before there was ever a thing called the Internet.
And what's stopping the local retailer from offering their goods via mail order as well? Nothing that I can think of. They have access to the same Internet and the same shipping options same as anyone else. I order from a number of companies that have have a single local retail store but also sell online.
So with respect to "B&M" I just see this as a whole lot of whining. The real threat to local retailers are the large national discount chains. The WalMarts, the Sam's Clubs, the Costcos, the Home Depots, the Lowes, etc.
se
Follow Ups:
and should be eliminated entirely.
Just wondering. Interesting history. The significance of the story seems to be mostly a rant. Echoes of Norquish: 'No new taxes', 'Read my lips', etc.
I would comment on it, but without attribution, it would be pointless ;-)
The main purpose was to point out that the way the argument's been presented as "B&M vs. online shopping" as if somehow that's something altogether new and different is a disingenuous mindfuck.
For me it has nothing to do with "no new taxes," but rather why, after over 200 years, I should suddenly have to become a tax collector for every other state and municipality that has a sales tax that I might ship an order to outside of the state my business is located.
As I said, "online shopping" is just mail order by another name. Nothing's changed.
se
I presume you are nowhere near the size of Amazon. I wonder how this will play out for the little guys. Yes, the little guys could get crushed by the onerous regulations. The big guys deserve to pay, however. I wish there was a better way to keep government afloat! Our tax structure does seem suboptimal. Death and taxes they do say.It would be most unfortunate if they hurt the smaller mail-order businesses and, especially manufacturers. Let's see if our Congressmen and Senators are looking out for us ordinary folk. Good luck. You're going to need it!
Edits: 08/04/12
The big guys deserve to pay, however.
First of all, they won't be "paying" anything. Not out of their own pockets anyway. They'll be collecting the sales taxes from the people buying from them. It's customers who will be paying. Not the big guys.
Second, why should "the big guys" deserve anything different? Why should they be a tax collector for all those various states and municipalities any more than I should?
I wish there was a better way to keep government afloat!
I dunno. Our government's been kept afloat since our founding without businesses having to collect sales taxes for every state and municipality that has a sales tax. Now that we call it "online shopping" instead of "mail order" something has changed?
se
That's why I thought you cut-n-pasted some right-wing no tax rant. I hate taxes, too. Just tell me how 10 percent of my income at the least goes to pay for a military empire I no longer believe in!
How is Amazon really any different than Sears back when they were publishing their catalog?
What's changed exactly that now all of a sudden mail order companies need to collect sales taxes for every state and municipality in the US that has them?
se
Maybe other reasons. Sears heyday was LONG AGO!
Welcome to being AMAZON'ed!
I think it will cut out some of my purchases. Probably didn't need those things anyway ;-)
Do you really think it's because of mail order? I don't. Mail order's been around for over a century. And B&M's thrived. And as I said previously, what's stopping local B&M retailers from selling via mail order? Absolutely nothing.
And state revenues? Think that might have something to do with the housing bubble and the severe recession we've been in for the past four years?
Sears heyday was LONG AGO!
Welcome to being AMAZON'ed!
Yes. And I'm asking, what the fuck's the difference? At the end of the day it's still just mail order. And B&M's seemed to do just fine during the heyday of the print catalogs.
What we didn't have back then were large, predatory discount chains that moved into a community and decimated the local retailers who couldn't compete not because of sales taxes, but because the big discount chains had more buying power and could easily undercut local retailers.
se
With little money staying locally, states have no choice but to start taxing consumption more agressively.
Good time to read some Howard Kunstler, I say: The Architecture of Nowhere, and other texts.
With little money staying locally, states have no choice but to start taxing consumption more agressively.
But the states that have sales taxes ARE collecting sales taxes on purchases made at the large discount chain stores that are killing off local retailers.
Look, it's not "online sales" that's responsible for the drop in sales tax revenues as can be seen here:
And turning people like me into tax collectors for every other state and municipality that have sales taxes will do absolutely nothing to address the real problems that we need to deal with. It's just a political distraction.
se
More money stays local with local businesses that are locally owned and operated. The chain stores provided low-income employment and export the money elsewhere -- to low-taxed investors and people like Romney. That is what happened to the money.
More money stays local with local businesses that are locally owned and operated. The chain stores provided low-income employment and export the money elsewhere -- to low-taxed investors and people like Romney. That is what happened to the money.
Yes.
But the average consumer doesn't give a flying fuck about any of that. All they care about is being able to stockpile their homes with more cheap shit from China, purchased at Walmart.
And more to the point, turning me into a nationwide tax collector isn't going to fix that.
se
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
