Online retailers (excluding the shell games that some companies play) do not benefit from a state's services, so why should they bear the burden of collecting taxes for that state?
Most states have a use tax that is the responsibility of the taxpayer to pay to make up for this; I should know, I just filed my taxes and paid it.
Really? That's interesting, I always thought these roads I drive on were paid for by the state. I don't really see many state-enabled services that brick-and-mortar's consume that internet retailers don't.
Since Fedex is not going bankrupt, it seems Amazon is at least paying Fedex enough to offset these expenses, so Amazon is in effect, through Fedex, paying these CA taxes (the same ones that in-state B&M stores would be paying for shipping a purchase to me, or that I would be paying if I bought an item at a local B&M store and transported it in my own motor vehicle).
Now, in my understanding, the purpose of these taxes is to pay for the "services" CA is providing to the taxpayer (in this case, Fedex, and, indirectly, Amazon). For a shipper, "services" would include construction and maintenance of (and bureaucratic overhead associated with) the roads, bridges, airports, etc.
But in your opinion Amazon is skating on their responsibility and should in addition charge sales tax to the customer (apparently for additional "services provided by the state" not covered by the above)? What are these additional services Amazon is receiving (in this transaction) from CA that are not being paid for via [[the above-mentioned]] taxes?
[1] http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vehindustry/mcp/mcpfaq.htm#what
[[edit]]
Everything is always connected.
If the citizens are choosing to not pay it, how is that the retailer's issue?
Ultimately, states should probably scrap sales taxes and raise capital gains, inheritance, property, and income taxes to compensate. Those are all tough politically/legislatively though.
What's unfair about it? They're not consuming any resources within the state, like Brick & Mortar merchants, who have an advantage of their own - physical stores to bring people in and sell them stuff on the spot.
No wonder they've been doing so well.
For those downvoting comments above, doing so isn't going to alter that fact.
Note that if you read the decision, the key issue is not whether a state can impose a sales tax on out-of-state retailers (it cannot, even without physical presence, if the substantial nexus test is met), but whether the state law unfairly discriminated against out-of-state retailers (which it does, the law is poorly written).
The reason Amazon folded against New York and California is because it knew both states were willing to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, and it knew that if that happened, it would lose.