How Amazon can offer free shipping to Prime members (hint: by charging them shipping)

[joeglow3]

It'll be interesting to see what comes of this lawsuit

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/amazon-customers-accuse-commerce-giant-cheating-prime-members/story?id=22882043

[el_bryanto]

1. I rarely use 3rd party vendors

They tend to charge more anyway, and it takes longer to get stuff from them (the article alleges that Blizzard is encouraging third parties to charge more for shipping).

Bryant

[Blue_Adept]

2. Unaware buyers

That's part of the issue. Some people foolishly think that getting prime means everything is covered, which has never been the case. It's a matter of just being a smart and informed buyer. The majority of mainline products people buy are covered and sold directly by amazon.

[MineralMan]

3. Uh, you can see that when you order from

non-Amazon shippers. It's good to look at your shopping cart before finalizing the order. I strongly advise doing that with all online orders.

[d_r]

4. wait a minute

she is saying that she doesn't compare the different prices from different venders with and without free shipping?

Who doesn't do that? For that matter comparing whether they charge sales tax or not as well.

[cbdo2007]

7. The argument is that it is confusing....

I'm a pretty smart guy generally, successful in business and such and buy from Amazon quite a bit, and I still feel like I get "tricked" about once every couple of months into buying something from a 3rd party seller that wasn't clear and I didn't get my free shipping.

[d_r]

19. I'm not being a smart elick

I'm being genuine. Get in the habit of looking for the "prime" picture. Then when you check out look to see if the total goes up if there is a charge under shipping. Also, if you check the "new and used" prices, sometimes the price + shipping is less than the prime price. Some of the venders use prime so it doesn't mean it is "from" Amazon if it uses prime.

I guess trying to get out of state taxes has probably encouraged me to compare the prices more.

[Codeine]

20. How can you get "tricked"?

Everything is right there on the screen. There's no bait-and-switch, no pulling of fast ones. Everything charged is spelled out quite clearly before you finalize the order.

[MADem]

26. There's big ass baby blue letters that say PRIME on stuff that is PRIME eligible.

It's not a secret. It's not mysterious, either. It's right next to the product description...



Ya just gotta look for that logo, and check your invoice before you check out.

[BooBrown]

127. I agree.

Who doesn't compare? You're using a computer! Do a bang search for what you're looking for. Takes about 10 seconds.

[former9thward]

5. The prime includes more than shipping.

You can watch pay for movies for free on amazon video. Also the shipping is 2 days which is faster than the shipping with 3rd parties.

[joeglow3]

10. I believe the lawsuit covers a period when that was not case

Maybe Amazon added that stuff so they could make that argument.

[tblue37]

77. Yep--and the Prime shipping deal includes 2-day shipping, which is

typically faster than non-prime deliveries.

At the current price--and even at the new price that is $20 more--Prime is actually a fairly good deal if you use Amazon much, especially if you take advantage of free streaming movies.

ON EDIT: Prime also warns (prominently) on each Prime item that the price (excluding shipping) might be lower on non-Prime versions of the item. I total the non-Prime price plus shipping and compare it to the Prime price. If the Prime price is a bit higher, then I decide based on how important quick delivery is to me for that item. It is easy to avoid being tricked.

[Tom Ripley]

6. Another recent Amazon story...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/17/140217fa_fact_packer?currentPage=all

[Cha]

69. Thanks.. interesting.

[pipi_k]

8. We have Prime here and

even when the price goes up, we're still going to keep it because we buy enough to more than cover the cost

Plus...I have it set up so I'm notified via text message when my items have shipped, and when they're delivered. Now some would say, why wouldn't you know when your own items have been delivered?

I live on a road that is bad in the winter. One of my neighbors down the hill has a business in town, and so UPS will drop off my packages to her and she drops them off here on her way home from work. If she signs for them, it shows up that way, so if I ever don't get a package, I can show it was delivered in town but not to me. PS...sometimes the UPS guy has to leave them in the door of my neighbor's business when nobody is there, so lots of chances for someone to walk away with them.

[JoePhilly]

13. You also want to know when its delivered because sometimes,

it gets delivered to the wrong address.

My address street name is long, and similar to another road less than 1/2 mile away. Its not uncommon for our mail to go to them, and theirs to come to my house.

So if you get an email that says something has been delivered, and it hasn't, you know immediately that there is a problem.

[MADem]

27. That happened to me once. I was at my summer address and

there are a lot of roads in nearby towns with similar names--often the drivers mess up and go to the wrong place.

[whatthehey]

9. BS claim from an idiot

EVERY item on Amazon has a "X new/used from $Y" message prominently displayed. If you can't be bothered to glance at that I doubt you are capable of understanding how Prime works.

[cyberswede]

11. A: there's the "prime" logo on most prime listings

B: There's the "why am I being charged shipping" link that appears in your cart.

C: the cart clearly shows when shipping is being charged.

I find it difficult to believe that people can't tell the difference.

[joeglow3]

14. That was not the case

Their argument is that the vendor inflates the price when selling to Amazon Prime members. Since Amazon lists prices by "Cost+Shipping" so long as the vendor keeps theirs below the other parties, it looks like it is still the cheaper alternative (even though they are selling the product for more, when shipping is factored in, they are cheaper), but the purchaser ends up paying shipping costs that are supposed to be free (as they are buried in the price of the product).

If this is true, it would clearly be illegal and not as obvious and you seem to think it is.

[cyberswede]

16. Well, from what I've seen...

they list the price plus shipping when you're comparing.

That is,

Item A from Vendor 1: $7 + free shipping
Item A from Vendor 2: $5 + $2.50 shipping

Even though the price from Vendor 1 is inflated to cover shipping, it's still the better deal. Does it really matter to me how the vendor distributes their $, if I still pay less?

It might be a problem if Vendor 1 sold Item A to non-prime members for only $5/$0 shipping, but sold to Prime members for $7/$0 shipping, but I don't think that's what they're doing.

And don't forget, if an item is listed as Prime, it's 2-day shipping, so even if a Prime item costs a couple dollars more, it's still worth it, if you need it fast.

I order a lot of stuff from Amazon, including third party vendors, and it really is easy to tell the difference when comparing prices.

[joeglow3]

17. But, is amazon overstating the benefit it is selling you?

If this is a concerted effort, it is clear there is am attempt to deceive. However, we will probably never know.

[cyberswede]

18. I don't know about intentional deceit, but...

I consider myself fully aware of the benefit I'm receiving.

1. I pay less (whether or not shipping is included in a marked-up price)
2. I get my items in 2 days
3. I get video streaming service, which we use frequently
4. I get instant MP3 downloads of many CDs I purchase

The $89 (soon to be $99) fee is well worth it for our family.

[CBGLuthier]

12. Seems more a case of stupid consumer should look closer.

I noticed immediately that Prime eligible items seemed to cost more than the same thing without the free shipping. I then use these things I have called MATH SKILLS and decide what is the best deal.
To be honest I got Prime for the movies anyway but still.

[joeglow3]

15. So, deception is okay for companies?

After all, we can use detective and math skills to figure out when they are deceiving us. Nice support of the big companies fucking over the little guys.

[bluestate10]

30. Prime is an advantage to Wholesale level buyers, it doesn't make sense for an

occasional buyer.

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. Please.

I have been a Prime member since they rolled it out. Amazon isn't charging shipping - if you are being charged shipping, it is to the external seller to cover their costs.

All anyone has to do is search for whatever it is they want and then click on the box next to "Prime" on the left side of the screen. That will filter out external sellers and only show what is available through Amazon.

[joeglow3]

22. And???

Just because they provide a different method, it doesn't mean this isn't illegal if they are doing it.

[Ruby the Liberal]

23. "Provide a different method"

You mean open the site to external sellers who pay a fee to list on Amazon and then they (external sellers) charge what they think the market will bear to ship their product to you?

And you think this is illegal?

[joeglow3]

24. No, amazon colluding with the third party seller to make prime more attractive

Why are you so adamant about depending a big business that we already know fucks over state and local governments?

[Ruby the Liberal]

25. *sigh*

[joeglow3]

33. Good defense mechanism

[MADem]

28. How do they "fuck over" state and local governments?

I pay sales tax on what I buy from Amazon.

Sorry--I like getting specialty items that are unavailable in my community delivered to my door.

[joeglow3]

32. Because you are in one of the few states amazon has elected to collect taxes in

Literally millions of articles about this dating back over a decade. I thing we can agree you are intentionally being obtuse.

[MADem]

35. Amazon collects taxes for twenty states now, and more are expected to come online.

Not "a few."

Congress is batting around the legislation to make this happen across the board, so, no, I am not being obtuse, intentionally or otherwise--the game is shifting.

Your state can get off their asses and demand the taxes; all they need to do is find a nexus w/Amazon. They have something--even if it's a piece of a transshipping warehouse--in most states, and that's all that's needed to put the hammer down.

Of course, if the state doesn't get off their asses, there will be no taxes collected.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/03/12/attention-online-shoppers-amazon-tax-hearing-means-better-get-clicking/

[joeglow3]

42. I am a tax CPA and understand nexus pretty well

There is a LOT more to it than a state "getting off their ass."

[MADem]

45. Apparently you don't understand it....because if you read the article I provided, you'd have a

better idea.

Amazon begged the Supremes to get them off the hook with NY. The Supremes told them to pound sand.

Even if the site where you buy doesn’t have a physical store in your state, a warehouse or distribution facility may be enough for tax nexus with your state. And the efforts at federal legislation and state collection efforts will continue. Most online sales will soon face either sales or use tax, and the states are getting better at collecting.

[joeglow3]

46. Thanks for educating me on nexus and public law 86-272

And to think, I got a masters, passed the CPA exam and spent 15 years doing multi-state taxation. I could have save all that by coming to you to educate me. Thanks.

[MADem]

49. You're welcome. I won't charge you for it or the lesson on the difference between 20 and "a few."nt

[joeglow3]

52. No problem. My wife is a nurse. You want to educate her as well?

I am sure you have read an article online that makes you an expert on that as well. Please tell her some great advice about how someone or some entity needs to "get their shit together."

As I have said, you can continue to support an entity that fucks over local school districts and increases the impact on the poor from the most regressive tax out there. You saved five dollars.

I pray you don't apply that same logic to increasing the minimum wage. I know how fucking pissed you would be if you had to pay a dollar or two more, even if it provides a living wage for someone. We can fight about how EVERYONE ELSE besides us needs to support the poor.

[MADem]

55. No, I have an in-law who is a nurse, I can get all the info I need from her.

You keep playing the "guilt" card, but you're not making your case.

How does an entity that pays taxes to the state, but reduces wear and tear on the roads by taking dirty cars off the streets "fuck over" local school districts?

You're flailing all over the place, trying to convince me to spend money on products I don't want, that don't meet my needs, out of ... GUILT.

Sorry, that won't work. I am very careful with my money. I buy what I NEED. That's why my car is almost 30 years old. That's why I've got socks I bought in Hong Kong when it was still under the protection of the British. And as for the schools, I've got a family full of educators--they do more than their share, and plenty are volunteers.

So, whatever. Bottom line--guilt doesn't work. Being a good, effective business is what works.

So either step up or step aside.

[joeglow3]

57. They don't pay taxes to most states

You might want to find a few more articles on public law 86-272. Good to know an effective business is one that has cheated state and local governments out of 8.6 BILLION dollars, in addition to not paying state income taxes in the majority of states.

And I am sure you have learned enough from your in law to educate all nurses.

[MADem]

62. Come up with some new complaints, at least.

The Supreme Court just backhanded Amazon re: NY. That gives other states the green light to start bigfooting Amazon and shaking them down for taxes. 20 states already collect Amazon taxes and more are in the wings.

In the meantime, they're wrassling about this in the Congress.

It's in that article, which is just days old.

Now come up with a new gripe, you keep lather-rinse-repeating the old ones. Waaah, Walmart, Waaah, you're a rightwinger if you don't buy crappy goods at lousy local stores, Waaah, Amazon doesn't pay taxes in "enough" states....

I don't need to "learn enough to educate all nurses." You just threw in your wife as a distraction because you've lost the bubble on this discussion. If I have a "nurse" question, I'll ask. If I need to purchase a specialty item, I'll do it ONLINE. And too damn bad if you don't like it, you sure aren't selling me on the "virtues" of buying stuff (that isn't available) locally.

You, unfortunately, will keep whining Walmart BAAAAAD-You're A Rightwinger-Amazon Doesn't Pay Taxes...but none of that applies to ME, as I don't shop at Walmart, I'm not a rightwinger, and Amazon DOES collect taxes in my state... so just get over it. Guilting people into buying shittier goods is not a motivator and is an unsustainable business practice....perhaps that's something you just need to take aboard.

[joeglow3]

66. Do you oppose corporate welfare?

If yes, how do you draw the line? Walmart did a lot of innovative things. One of the biggest was perfecting just-in-time inventory systems. Just because a company does innovative things that give them an advantage, they are not suddenly entitled to billions in corporate welfare at the expense of the poorest amongst us.

[MADem]

67. I don't shop at Walmart. How many times do I have to repeat that to you? nt

[joeglow3]

72. I did ask about walmart. I merely used them as an example

I notice you didn't answer any of my questions, though. I wonder why that is? Is it because you support "innovative" companies taking BILLIONS in corporate welfare if it means you can save fifty dollars?

[MADem]

76. Yes, indeed, you DID ask about walmart...so why, when I keep telling you I don't shop there,

should I respond to your vague, bullshit attempts at "gotcha" questions?

You are obviously so enraged at Walmart that you're focused on them unreasonably. You're also BULLSHIT at Amazon, for reasons that are rather quixotic and pointless...do you really think getting shirty and argumentative will convince ANYONE to stop using them -- in fact, if I didn't know better, I'd swear you were one of those viral marketers, trying to use reverse psychology on people, or something? Because that's the effect your diatribes are having, in case you're not clear on your impact, here.

Or maybe you just like to fight on the internet instead of doing your big, important job with your "multi-state team"-- could that be it?

In any event, you're starting to get boring. You keep repeating the same talking points over and over again, Walmart baaad; Big Important multi-state team job; Amazon baaaad; no one can teach me anything; Walmart baaad... it's getting dull, you see.

[joeglow3]

80. They are only gotcha questions because you see the hypocrisy

Even in the face of such concrete hypocrisy, you are still fighting to deny it? I wish you would put that energy into fighting the corporations fucking us over rather than supporting them so long as you get a few table scraps from the good masters.

[MADem]

87. No. I don't see the hypocrisy, sorry. I pay my sales tax and I get stuff delivered to my door.

I don't have to trudge out in the snow and ice.

I don't have to burn time and gasoline and oil.

I don't have to put wear and tear on the roads in my state, my car, and myself on a fruitless search.

And, for some odd reason, that makes you angry.

You don't want me to buy the few goods I want to buy. You don't want to provide jobs to the people who handle or deliver my packages.

You want me to drive all over hell not finding what I want, and you want me to buy poor substitutes from overpriced big box stores because they're "local"--yeah, riiiiiiiight.

And you're so enraged that screaming, repeatedly, Walmart bad/I'm an expert/Amazon Bad/Public Law Waaah Waah Waah isn't convincing me!

Gee, wonder why that is? Why do you engage, repeatedly, in what is plainly a pointless pursuit, rather than working at your High Powered Super Important Job With Your Multi-State Team?

[joeglow3]

92. Is there any company you think gets corporate welfare?

If yes, how do we oppose them and support companies that can't offer better prices because they are not taking billions from governments?

[MADem]

97. I'm sure there must be. But that has nothing to do with my ordering stuff from Amazon, paying my

sales tax, and getting my heavy items, exactly what I want, when I want it, delivered to my door--without having to spend hours in my old car, driving around, expending time, gas, oil, wear on my tires and wear on my community's roads, in a fruitless search for an item at a brick and mortar outlet.

[joeglow3]

102. Would you acknowledge that by giving money to these companies,

we are implicitly supporting (with our money and our voices) the very policies we say are hurting poor Americans?

[MADem]

103. Which companies? You're trying to conduct some sort of "inquisition" with dire and vague language.

The portentous generalizations, the carping about Walmart...etc., etc., and so forth...with every post, you sound less genuine, and more like a caricature of a real person.

You obviously aren't doing much if any actual work, either by yourself or with your vast network of multi-state operatives...I'm afraid I am coming to the sad (for you) conclusion that your little effort on this thread is a long, drawn out, clumsily constructed and lamely executed bit of indifferent performance art.

I just can't take you seriously anymore...sorry! You've jumped the shark!

[joeglow3]

105. Do a search of corporate welfare

You will see all the evidence you need. Frankly, I did not think this concept was very nebulous.

[pipi_k]

88. As they say...

One man's table scraps are another man's meal.


Like MADEM, there are special things I need for one of my dogs, who suffers from chronic staph infection outbreaks on her abdomen.

I have checked the local farm and pet store. It isn't there.

I've checked online and it's in some other places besides Amazon, but only for in-store purchase. One store I just looked at is 25 miles from me, one way.

We are on fixed incomes here, and both of us are disabled in some way. But I'll gladly buy from them if you'll volunteer to pick it up and deliver it to me.

Yes, I realize that it would be a sacrifice on your part, but hey...how far should someone be willing to go to fight the corporations that are fucking us over?

IOW, it's easy to tell someone else to make sacrifices, but the spiel stops when the sacrifices aren't what one wants to make himself.

[joeglow3]

91. We're in it together really means OTHER people sacrifice, not me.

Got it.

[pipi_k]

113. Exactly!

You're asking others to sacrifice in a manner you think is appropriate.



But when someone asks you to help them make that sacrifice....

Oh noooooo....!!!!


OK so here's the deal...you don't get to tell other people how, when, and where they should make a sacrifice.

Well, that's not true. You can tell them.

But they don't have to do it, no matter how guilty you try to make them feel.

[joeglow3]

118. Asking someone to shop at a store that doesn't fuck people over

Is a long way from asking someone to get on an airplane and do their shopping for them. The fact that you try to equivocate the two says you know it is absurd.

[pipi_k]

120. And you don't understand

that some people don't have much of a choice, as when both are disabled to some extent, are on fixed incomes, and live 25 miles away from the nearest place that sells what they need.

Of course what I suggested is absurd.

But so is insisting that people who don't do their shopping in a way you think is proper and appropriate also absurd.

And instead of stating that you understand the problems people might face, and letting it go at that, you double down, using guilt...accusing them of being just a step down from Right Wing shills, uncaring, greedy, and just all around shitty human beings.

Try walking a mile or two in someone else's shoes before pointing disparaging fingers at them.

[joeglow3]

121. They must live is a shit hole of a place

In college, I had no car for a month. I needed pet supplies and the local vet offered to have someone drop off the product I needed. I guaran-fucking-tee there is a vet that will work with someone. Try it. Overall, people are good.

[pipi_k]

123. Sorry, but...

my vet isn't going to make the same mileage trip (25 miles) out to pick up what I need, then drive the 25 miles back to my house and then the 15 miles back to her home/office.

And it's not just the pet supplies.

I use a special laundry detergent. I have looked in the real stores for it...can't find it. Amazon carries it. Not only do they carry it, but it's cheaper there than some other online stores and I can have it sent to me on a subscription basis.

Water filters. Same thing. Subscription service, same price I can get them for in Walgreens.


Yes, I pay for "free shipping" via the cost of membership, but there are two of us here. Split down the middle, even the $99 yearly fee which will cost us each $50, is not even half of what each of us would pay for two day shipping because of what we buy from Amazon. Taken in that context, we are definitely getting the better deal here.

I just checked my account for 2013. I placed 59 orders last year. Two day air UPS is probably more than 5.99 but I'm just going to use that number for the hell of it. So, since I share Prime membership at my house, it only costs me $40 per year if I pay for half. Last year I got free shipping of $353.41. If I subtract my half of membership fee, I still got over $300.00 of absolutely FREE shipping.

Mr Pipi ordered at least as many times as I did...actually he ordered more, but let's just say it was the same...59 orders.

That's another $300.00 plus of FREE shipping.

So, the math is easy...my household pays $79.00 membership fee, gets over $600 in absolutely FREE shipping.

And people had jobs.

[joeglow3]

126. So, you admit you did not try to work something out locally

I always try that first and count on one hand the number of times they couldn't do something. You basically just admitted you think the average person is, at best, ambivalent. I feel sorry for that outlook.

[pipi_k]

129. Actually

I just "admitted" that my neighbors (the closest of whom live about 1/3 mile away) have jobs and family responsibilities and I would be an asshole for asking them to drive over 50 miles round trip to pick up something for me that UPS can bring.

And I'm really sorry you don't understand that.

[MADem]

98. If a local store that had what I wanted would deliver, I'd be down with that.

But they don't stock what I need, act like it's an imposition if I ask if they can special order, so to hell with 'em.

There's a reason "the mall" is dying. It's failed to adapt.

[joeglow3]

134. I can understand that.

I appreciate your attempts for local first. However, I doubt the vast majority even try.

[forthemiddle]

89. It's not Amazon screwing the state and local governments

It is the consumer! Even if Amazon has the capability to send the taxes owed to the States, at this point it is not their responsibility (in most states), it is the responsibility of the buyer!! When you do your taxes, you are required, by law, to claim all purchases you have made tax free so a sales tax can be levied. If you don't do it, it is your Ass on the line, not Amazon.

People do need to take responsibility for themselves sometimes. It isn't always the big, bad corporations fault.

You are the one evading taxes by not claiming them, NOT Amazon!

[joeglow3]

93. And every company getting billions in corporate welfare do so legally

What is your point? Both are companies exploiting and rigging the system to fuck us over. How do you decide which fucking over is okay and which isn't?

[JJChambers]

90. The consumer is responsible for the taxes, not amazon

By saying amazon cheated states tells me you either suck at your job or are being disingenuous to further your struggling argument.

I'm going to run by Walmart and pick up some Nathan's hot dogs and then get on Amazon to order a new case for my rifle. But first I'm going to finish watching this ST:TNG streaming episode from prime.

[joeglow3]

94. Try to be intellectually honest here.

There is a reason the current system of companies collecting sales taxes exist. The billions that companies get in corporate welfare is legal. Does that make it automatically okay? It amazes me how quickly you and others will sell out other so long as you get yours. But let's all bitch and complain about how OTHER people need to do more. And we wonder why we are fucked as a nation. It is a lot easier to just point at rich people, while ignoring our actions that also contribute to the fist fucking the poor receive. Like I said, we are all in the together really means OTHER people need to sacrifice and do more, but don't fuck with my lifestyle one bit.

[JJChambers]

96. Your position seems irresponsible and disingenuous to me

In this situation, the consumer is legally responsible for any sales or use tax due: Amazon is not responsible. To accuse amazon of "cheating states out of billions of dollars," as you have done in this thread, is simply incorrect. Sometimes corporations are in the wrong. We realize that. But sometimes isn't synonymous with always.

Blame the ones responsible (consumers) or work to get the law changed so that the burden shifts from the consumer to the merchant, but don't accuse a company of cheating because they're actually playing by the rules. That adds nothing to this discussion.

Also, <3 Amazon

[joeglow3]

101. Have you not paid attention to what amazon has done to people to avoid nexus?

And again, just because it is label, it does not mean it is okay. Certain assault guns are legal. Are you cool with that? Gay marriage is illegal in many places. Are you cool with that? Many companies get billions in legal corporate welfare? Are you cool with that? Do you feel fine supporting those companies that can offer cheaper prices because they benefit from these laws that only hurt the poor (whp pay the highest prices with these extremely regressive taxes)?

[JJChambers]

104. .

1. Certain "assault" guns should be legal
2. Gay marriage bans are being ruled unconstitutional left and right; I'm cool with THAT
3. Corporate welfare outrage should be directed at the politicians who authorize it, not the corporations who request it
4. I feel fine supporting companies with quality products at reasonable prices

I still don't understand how you're blaming Amazon for the actions of their customers. Amazon is in compliance with what is required of them; certain customers are not in compliance. No matter how much you yell "CORPORATE BAD," doesn't change that simple truth.

As I said before, direct your efforts at changing the law and not raging at Amazon for following the law. You're pissing in the wind.

[joeglow3]

106. I can be upset with multiple parties at once.

According to your logic the 1% is a bunch of kick ass people who do no wrong. You honestly think these people/politicians don't collude to get these breaks? I am capable of blaming both parties to the transaction.

[JJChambers]

107. Do you blame the fat child who asks for an extra slice of chocolate cake

Or do you blame the parent who provides it without question?

[joeglow3]

108. False equivalency

That is premised on grown adults having the reasoning skills of an 8 year old.

[JJChambers]

109. It's premised on not rewarding or facilitating undesired behavior

[joeglow3]

111. So, the company using a jet to wine a dine a congressman is okay

After all, they can't control themselves. Sorry, but I blame the party with the ability to be corrupt, along with the party trying to corrupt said person.

[MADem]

99. +1 nt

[ReverendDeuce]

75. HHUUURRRR!!! Aaaaaammaazzzhaaaaannn!! TAXESSSS!! TAAXESSSS!! Y U NO PAY TEXASSS!??!

I feel a bit like having a Conner O'Malley scream-fit here...

Watching the interaction between the pro- and anti-Amazon flocks is breathtaking!

AAUUUUGGGHGHHHHHH!!!!

[MADem]

78. But....but....

They make MEEEEEEEEEEE pay sales tax.....!!!!

[bluestate10]

29. Amazon is moving into Wholesale level sales, that is an advantage to some businesses,

Prime would be an advantage because shipping costs will be known and finite.

[elfin]

31. I love Amazon Prime

I check other sites to see if the shipping costs are as described by Amazon. If lower or free, go with them.

But that VERY rarely happens.

The gas it saves me is worth it alone. Plus, the money I save on shipping goes toward gift wrapping for a gift sent out of town.

Alpha House was terrific as well.

Even if Bezos is Satan, I am a convert and will continue to subscribe.

[joeglow3]

34. And do you pay use tax in everything your purchase?

[MADem]

37. Elfin's favorite group is Wisconsin.

If he's from there, Amazon collects taxes there.

[joeglow3]

38. I didn't see wisconsin on any lists that amazon collects for

That said, they still actively set up their business to avoid collecting more in sales tax than all but a couple companies get in corporate welfare. Said differently, they are in the top five worst offenders for fucking over poor people through corporate welfare. And people wonder why we are fucked: people on DU are lining up to jump to their defense and tout their business model.


Sad....

[MADem]

39. It's in the link I provided to you.

On edit--there is nothing "sad" about me getting stuff I wouldn't be able to get otherwise without travelling for an hour or more, delivered to my door, saving me time, effort, wear and tear on my old car, and gasoline.

If you don't like that, well, too bad for you. I'm not going to wear a crown of thorns and a hair shirt to suit you.

[joeglow3]

41. And people say the same for Walmart

But, so long as you get yours, fuck everyone else. Views like yours completely undermine everything we stand for as progressives. We are all in this together and have a responsibility under the social contract to not fuck over poor people, even if it benefits us.

[MADem]

43. Walmart doesn't carry specialty dog food for a sick dog. Amazon does.

So, no ... "people" don't say the same thing for Walmart.

What would you have me do? Feed my dog shit from the local Petco out of "loyalty" to the local Big Box store?

Views like YOURS completely undermine something called "reality."

Compete or die. If you can't deliver Value Added, go do something else. Don't expect people to eschew the better solution out of some bullshit, misguided loyalty to an inferior product, from an inferior provider, delivered late.

It's just not gonna happen. And if you think it is, you're dreaming.

[joeglow3]

47. I guaran-fucking-tee there are local places that carry it

Vet clinics. Pet stores. Many other places. Plus, you get to support a local business owner, someone who doesn't fight paying their fair share of taxes and people getting paid a living wages.

But, like I said your logic sounds like a PR campaign for Walmart. Like I said, so long as you get yours, fuck everyone else.

[MADem]

50. There aren't. I've already done the round robin. I've gone round in person, and called.

Vet Clinics carry that Science Diet shit that's full of corn and crap. Not good for an allergic dog with liver disease.

You keep coming back to Walmart, like they're the "boogeyman." Well, they may be, or they may not be, but they don't sell specialty dog foods for a sick dog.

But hey, say "Walmart" again, if that's all you've got...and even though this isn't ABOUT Walmart.

You're just ticked because you're not competing. Maybe you need to retool your business model (offer delivery, perhaps) rather than complain that people won't drive out of their way to patronize you, have to pay to park, and then find out you don't have what they need.

[joeglow3]

51. The logic is EXACTLY about Walmart

Walmart started from nothing and grew into the business it is today by fucking people over. Amazon did the exact same thing: grow to the size they are by offering low prices achieved by fucking people over.

And we rescued a dog a couple years ago that has severe allergies. The first two vet clinics we called both were able to get the product we need.

[MADem]

54. No it isn't. Walmart doesn't have what I need, and you don't have to pay to park.

The specialty shops don't have what I need either, and I DO have to pay to park.

Now, tell me again why I want to drive around town in my old car, burning gas and oil, to look for what I cannot find, when I can order it in my drawers at two in the morning, and have some nice young person plomp it down on my porch in two days' time?

My dog's issues were allergies and liver disease. Severe liver disease. No meat, no corn or corn by products.

How lucky for you that your vet clinics had what you needed. The ones in my area carry Science Diet and Royal Canin and that's IT. That's NOT what I need.

And I don't know a video store anywhere that sells British sitcoms like HEARTBEAT or THE ROYAL. Or Spanish TV shows. But Amazon will find that stuff for me--if not US Amazon, UK will do.

You're not making your case. In fact, I need to get on over to Amazon and order a few things...which I can do at this late hour, without leaving the comfort of my home.

[joeglow3]

56. So long as you get yours.

The right thanks you.

[MADem]

60. Yes, I think if I'm going to pay for something I want, I should get what I pay for--not some shitty

second-rate crap that I buy because the vendor doesn't have the "good stuff" or I'm tossing my money away to keep someone in business who can't even keep his inventory up to snuff to satisfy basic customer demand.

This has nothing to do with "the right" and your framing of it in that fashion is a HUGE fail. You've run out of arguments, the WALMART one that you dragged out twice was a klinker the size of an elephant turd, so now you're making veiled "Waaaaah....if you don't buy half-baked, crummy crap from a lame shop, instead of buying what you want online--like most people do, nowadays--you're a RIGHTWINGER" accusations.

If you think "the left" wants to buy shitty, inferior goods to keep lousy shopkeepers in business, that's probably why you're having a tough go of it. The left likes quality goods, the best they can afford at a fair price, as much as anyone else. They're not aliens from outer space, rubes just off the turnip truck, or idiots, you know. Or maybe you don't? It's starting to look that way.

[joeglow3]

61. The right supports corporate welfare

The BILLIONS of dollars amazon has cheated local governments out of is on par with what the largest corporate criminals have stolen. Sorry if you don't like facing that fact. Clearly, you can rationalize it because it benefits you at the expense of millions of others. THAT is very much the policies of the right.

[MADem]

64. Waaah, waaah, waaah. Get your state legislators to get off their asses and go after Amazon.

That's what they did in NY. That's what they did in MA. That's what they did in 19 other states.

Stop crying, get cracking. And that's not "the policies of the right." If your state isn't collecting those taxes, that's the policies of the LAZY.

[joeglow3]

65. Your ignorance of how nexus works is astounding.

That said, how do you feel about companies that get billions in LEGAL state and federal incentives? Are there ANY companies you hold out as bad corporate citizens in regards to taxes? If yes, which ones and why?

[MADem]

68. No, it isn't. You might try reading the link and learning a little something.

Now run along, and have a nice night.

[joeglow3]

71. What part of "I do this for a living don't you understand?"

Fifteen years experience. You amaze me. I wish I could go through life thinking I knew more about everything than professionals who built their career on it. Of course, this explains how the issa's of the world can exist, related to climate change. They read an article and people just need to "get off their ass."

Thanks for the laugh though. I forwarded your posts to those on my multi-state team and they got a kick out of it.

Upon edit, since you are a nexus expert from a Forbes article, what are your thoughts on the recent ConAgra vs West Virginia state Supreme Court ruling?

[MADem]

73. How about the part where it becomes pretty obvious that you can't or won't absorb the material

in a fairly simple magazine article?

I didn't have any trouble absorbing it--can't understand why you, with your "fifteen year's experience" are having so much difficulty reading an article geared to, what, the eighth grade in terms of reading ability.

20 states, more on the way. A Supreme Court decision favoring the states.

Can't understand why you can't wrap your head around that--but hey, I don't have a "multi-state team" like you do!

Maybe your problem is that you're too busy forwarding posts from DU to "those on (your) multi-state team" for imagined chuckles, instead of working for a living. I will say I can already tell that your customer service skills approach negligible, if your commentary in this thread is any indication!

In any event, I'll continue to patronize Amazon--beats burning gas and lugging heavy boxes--and you have one of those REAL nice days, now!

[joeglow3]

79. Do honestly think the most contested issue of multi state tax

can be easily summarize in one article? An issue that has thousands Of court cases regarding it, is supported by federal law (you have yet to give your thoughts on public law 86-272) and is the most contested issue upon state examinations? If so, it must be great to go through life so soaked in ignorance, yet thinking you are beaming with enlightenment.

[MADem]

85. Someone doesn't have much of a job, now you're repeating the

"public law" riff yet again!

Oh no! Joeglow3 (not 1, 2, or 4) is yet again shrieking about public 86-272, the Interstate Income Act of 1959, like it's his Holy Grail! Let me cower in fear....

Naah. I'd rather shop at Amazon, and pay my state sales tax! Which Amazon very efficiently collects on behalf of my state...

Public Law 86-272 does not protect a corporation in the state where it is incorporated.[7] Likewise, it does not protect sellers of services or intangibles. In addition, it provides protection only from taxes measured by income. Taxes measured by net worth or gross receipts, or sales and use taxes, are not covered.[8]

[joeglow3]

81. Do think amazons physical presence is identical in all fifty states?

[MADem]

82. You can learn the answer to that by reading the article I provided. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

84. I'd gladly pay sales tax on my online purchases

Of course I think sales tax is regressive bullshit to begin with, so I'm glad I now live in a place with an income tax.

[WinkyDink]

36. And the people forced to use Amazon would be...?

[joeglow3]

48. So, companies should be able to collude

It is your fault for shopping there and trusting them, after all.

[Aerows]

40. UPS arriving at like 10PM at night

Is my sticking point. Yes, I get it .. the next in the middle of the night.

[ananda]

44. Oooh, nasty.

What a ... corporation!

[greyl]

53. Amazon Prime Terms and Conditions here:

Amazon Prime Terms and Conditions

[DebJ]

58. I really can't grasp the basis of this lawsuit. Seems like someone who is math-challenged.

Really basic math.

I have Prime, and use it all the time.
It is very easy, and has been for the 4 years I have had it, to do price comparisons on Amazon. I mean, it's right there
in black and white.
Duh: Amazon cost is $x with Prime.
Other vendor is $x + shipping.
Even if this wasn't displayed on the screen before, as it is now, it was easy enough to find out simply by beginning to place an order through the other vendor, and seeing what the total came to, and then deciding to actually order it or back out and go through Prime. Sheesh. Took like two minutes. I couldn't even get into my car and start it up in two minutes, much less compare prices across town.

Quite often I find the prices are comparable, with Amazon or the other vendor, but Amazon gets things to my house much more quickly. Sometimes the other vendors have shipping times that are a week longer than Amazon. Depending on my need, even if Prime costs a buck more or so, the guaranteed shipping and the service record I've seen with them makes them worth that $1 or so.

So I just don't get the basis of this lawsuit. I would think it would be embarrassing to stand in court and prove you were too stupid to figure it out.

[Godhumor]

59. Meh. Baseless lawsuit, I think

Seriously doubt it will make it to class action status.

[pugetres]

63. There once was a woman who had an Amazon account who

met a man who also had an Amazon account. They liked each other and got married. They also decided to go Prime.
----------
Only one account was needed for both of us to enjoy Prime eligibility. We opted to purchase it on my account since I shop Amazon more often. But, his account is still active and I have not noticed any difference whatsoever in the advertized price of an item from a particular merchant based on whether or not it is being sold to a Prime account holder. None. Nada.

Different merchants charge different amounts for the same item, yes. Shipping costs can vary per seller also. But, a Prime eligible item offered by an individual seller/merchant costs the same no matter if the item is purchased by a Prime account holder or non-Prime account holder.

------------

SCOTUS decided that online interstate commerce would be burdened by forcing online merchants to collect sales tax in states where they do not have a presence. That could change in the near future but, for now, the onus is on the purchaser to be aware of their state's laws and pay the appropriate sales tax.

[MADem]

74. You can share your prime account with four others at the same address, which is nice if you have a

houseful.

[sendero]

70. I like Amazon.

.... and I am a Prime member. I am very satisfied with what I get for my $79->$99 a year.

That said I have learned that while Amazon makes a great show of low pricing (i.e. including 3rd party listings and etc), they are by no means the best deal on the internet for lots of products, particularly I have found, things that cost more than 20-40 dollars.

If I am buying something that costs 10-20 bucks I usually just get it from Amazon. If it costs $100, I will shop around and it is rare than I don't find a substantially better deal somewhere else.

Being a savvy consumer is work. If you want to get the most for your money you have to work at it. Amazon is great but they are by no means the slam dunk best deal.

[pipi_k]

83. The world is not

a fair place to live.

Never was, and I highly doubt it ever will be.

So people are going to end up being fucked, no matter what.

I've read through this thread and that problem appears to be high on your list of Most Annoying Things.

The only problem with seeing the world through black and white filters is that it's not black and white at all. It's lots of shades of gray.

So let's start with Walmart and Amazon. They got where they are by "fucking people". They'll probably never change, so let's all just boycott them into non-existence.

Cool! Yeah, we rock on with our bad selves!

Except...they don't exist anymore...or, at best, they have to fire a lot of people. What happens to all those unemployed people?

simple! They just take a better, higher paying...uh...wait a minute.

If it were that simple, why didn't they do that before?


So all those people formerly HAD jobs...maybe not the best, or anything that would enable them to have a house or better vehicle, at least those jobs kept them from being homeless or with no food on the table.

But hey...they're homeless and destitute now, but at least they're not "being fucked" by Walmart and Amazon! Yay!

So really...before rushing off on our trusty steeds clad in suits of armor to Save The World, maybe it would be a good idea to ask people if they want to be "saved" if it means they end up in a worse position than the one they're already in.

[joeglow3]

95. And, you just argued against everything obama and progressives are fighting for

Welcome to the right.

[pipi_k]

114. I didn't

"argue against anything".


I just want to know what the hell happens to people when their jobs are gone because someone else decided those people are "being fucked".

I'll tell you what...if I worked at a place that maybe wasn't the greatest in the world, but at least I had a job, and someone came along to tell me how fucked I'm being and how they want to "help" me by making it possible for me to not even HAVE a job, I'd tell that person to mind his own goddamned business.

You got a solution that's not going to make someone's life even worse, then spit it out. Otherwise, MYOB and go "help" someone else.

Oh, and you don't try to make a point by spewing all this "welcome to the right" bullshit. Address my specific argument and tell me how fucking someone over by ending his job is any better than his being fucked over by a corporation. At least he's got a job. You going to pay his bills and feed his kids? No.

[joeglow3]

117. They will get a job with a living wage at a locally owned business

Your argument is what Walmart uses. Have you read grapes of wrath? You are doing exactly what the 1% wants us to do. Race to the bottom and feel grateful for the table scraps they give us.

[pipi_k]

119. Well then a question...

What is your brilliant solution to the problem of millions more people being unemployed when the rest of us who don't work at these places boycott them to the extent that they let people go?

do all those people just disappear?

Or maybe the tooth fairy comes each night and leaves money under their pillows for their bills.


It's real easy to be a Crusader for some cause or another.

Not so easy to come up with constructive, viable solutions to the consequences of being a Crusader.

[joeglow3]

122. You incorrectly assume economics is a zero sum game

And then, once you have grasped on to an incorrect theory, you are insulting and double down on your ignorance. I never told people to burn their money and remove their wealth from circulation. I told them to spend their money at a place playing a living wage. Why are you so upset if a large company, paying shit wages and huge profits loses a shitty job and, in its place, a small business is now able to create a job paying a living wage?

[pipi_k]

124. For one thing,

smaller businesses don't always pay a living wage.

For another thing, even if you never told people to remove their wealth from circulation, your suggestion that they not buy from large companies would have one of two results:

1. Less business means large companies would feel justified in cutting staffing. That means....unemployed people

or

2. Less business might have no effect whatsoever. In which case, it's just an exercise in "morality".


So. If your goal isn't to put large companies out of business, then it must be to tell us all what our moral compasses should be.

And you're just not getting it.

You are trying to guilt and shame and insult people into following YOUR moral compass.

That is what's upsetting me.

You don't like the way Walmart or Amazon operate? Fine. Do what you gotta do. Don't tell the rest of us we have to live by your moral compass.

[joeglow3]

125. That is a bullshit position

By your logic, we cannot discuss Fred phelps, chick-fil-a or any other issue because it is pushing a moral agenda. You have, with that position, killed the very existence of a message board.

My position is that there exists companies that do not fight for a business model they know results in billions of government money not getting collected. They do not close facilities or make business decisions to avoid nexus in as many states as possible. With your logic, I need to support defense contractors because to not do so would be advocating for people to lose their jobs. I cannot question any unethical business practice because it would result in losing jobs.

I understand how this works. I worked for Arthur Andersen right out of college. Many people here were calling for Andersen to go down. Honestly, the sad thing is that the only people hurt were the back office, blue collar workers. Us accountants just got picked up by another big four firm. However, few would argue that the securities environment is not better off because of this move.

Sure, some people working at an unethical company may lose their job. However, that business would be directed to more ethical companies, resulting in them creating jobs. It is not like all the ethical companies are sitting at 50% of capacity and would just take on the increased business without an increase in need for additional labor.

[pipi_k]

130. I can see

you're just not getting the point I'm trying to make and you want to keep arguing.

I'll repeat it one more time.


We can absolutely discuss various issues.

What people don't get to do is to apply THEIR moral compasses to anyone they're having a discussion with.

If you have facts, then use the facts.

Which you did try to do at first until people started giving their own personal reasons as to why they like Walmart or Amazon.


Argue the merits of the issue. If the facts don't work (as in trying to convince people that they being screwed over by being charged for shipping, then being told shipping is free, which is not always the case) then don't use belittling, shaming, guilt, or any other tactic to make your point.

That is absolutely what you've been doing here in an attempt to convince others that YOU are "right".


PS...and while lost jobs at bigger companies might be directed toward smaller companies, there's also the possibility that they might not. Or, if they are, they might not want to hire the people who had lost their jobs at the bigger companies.

There are always consequences...always. You don't get to play God and decide people's futures for them.

[joeglow3]

133. I am more upset with them cheating state and local govt out of 8.6 billion

This is just icing on the turd sandwich. I hear people excuse/justify it because they save money. And people wonder why we struggle so much with getting change. Companies will push and get away with whatever we let them get away with.

[MADem]

100. And a rising tide--as well as a rising minimum wage (thanks, Obama!) lifts all boats!

I guess some folks think we need to destroy the world in order to save it...?

[pipi_k]

115. Yep...or...

We killed the patient, but hot damn! we got the tumor....

[DireStrike]

112. All profit is theft. Don't hate the player, hate the game (Capitalism)!

Until we figure out how to make the modern economy run without it, screwing people is here to stay.

[steve2470]

86. I also use Google Shopping

https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&ei=HUAMU-v7EofCsQTgxoCgAQ&ved=0CBgQ1S4#q=cat+food&tbm=shop

Link above is for cat food, just a generic search. You can get much more specific, of course. You can search for the lowest price including shipping costs. Many times they are cheaper than Amazon. The only problem is you have to trust the seller. So far I have not gotten burned *knock on digital wood*

[DireStrike]

110. As someone who has worked for an Amazon third party seller, this is fascinating.

First of all, if a business offers "free" anything, you will pay for it in some other way. A lawsuit against McDonalds offering free drink refills, because they then inflate the price of fries to pay for it, would be laughed out of court. This is essentially the same thing, but with a LOT more factors involved.

The price of course does wind up as suggested by the lawsuit, but I don't think there is any course of action that Amazon could take to make third party sellers NOT set the price at this level.

Finally, this is ignoring the "2-day" part of "free 2-day shipping". This is the benefit that I assume people are willing to pay more for. In fact, 3rd party FBA merchants can and usually do charge a premium above and beyond the cost + shipping of merchant-fulfilled sellers, due to the quick shipping and "customer is always, always, always right" customer service of Amazon. I don't think this is due to the inability of Amazon prime customers to do math.

[kcr]

128. It's those "Lot more factors involved" that make it deceptive and unethical.

It's one thing for a business to pull the typical free offer to lure business but charge more in other areas to make up for it. Lots of businesses do that. But then to call that a "premium" service and charge extra for the privilege, colluding with vendors in the process? That makes it not "essentially the same thing". That makes it fraud.

[DireStrike]

131. There's no collusion (that I'm aware of,) and Amazon itself doesn't charge extra.

Others do, based on market forces. Those forces are partially influenced by Amazon's policies. However, as I said, I can't imagine anything Amazon could do that would make 3rd party sellers not charge at this level. Do you have a concrete idea? Tell me and I'll explain why I think it would or wouldn't work.

Amazon is a weird entity in that much of its service is to provide a marketplace. This is an interesting case, to be sure.

[kcr]

132. Amazon itself isn't charging extra, but they're encouraging it with the vendor referral fees

Prime vendors raising their prices results in higher vendor referral fees per item. Telling prime vendors to raise their prices by the amount for shipping when you're charging prime customers a fee for "free shipping" is deceptive and unethical to say the least.