I'm putting all this "stuff" (good, bad & ugly) together in one place...to just let it stew.
___________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________

Wal*Mart: Killing Local Businesses, One Main Street at a Time
Some information on Wal-Mart

Within 5 years of Wal-Mart's arrival, an average of 4 small businesses, 1 mid-sized store and 1 large store go out of business.
      more @ www.missouri.edu/~baskere/papers/

Wal-Mart takes 84% of its business from existing stores.
      more @ www.pbs/itvs/storewars/chat_transcript.html

For every $100 spent at Wal-Mart, local economies lose $30.50.
      more @ www.newrules.org/retail/midcoaststudy.pdf

here are some interesting and depressing books on Wal*Mart that I've read.
The Wal*Mart Effect by Charles Fishman
The United States of Wal*Mart by John Dicker
Wal*Mart: The Face of 21-Century Capitalism edited by Nelson Lichtenstein
The Bully of Bentonville by Anthony Bianco

Fewer Books, More Potholes The True Cost of AMAZON'S Tax Gimmickry

How many new teachers could you hire in California for $48,000,000 per year—1,000, maybe more? How many police officers or fire-fighters could you employ? How many books could you buy for school libraries—5,000,000? You could get at least that many.

$48,000,000 is the estimated amount of revenue that California loses each year by Amazon.com’s refusal to collect and pay sales taxes in this state. If you consider that Amazon has been thumbing its nose at California tax laws for more than a decade, the amount lost is probably well over half-a-billion dollars. You can point the finger at Amazon for this scandal—and you should—but please save a digit or two for the California Board of Equalization, which is the agency that should be enforcing the law against them. Because of the BOE’s foot-dragging, the rest of us have to cover this revenue shortfall.

Who Gets Hurt?
Lots of people get hurt as a result of the tax holiday that Amazon.com has carved out for itself.

Local communities take a big hit, because that’s where most sales tax revenue goes. When you’re talking about loss of sales tax, you’re not talking about some vague government programs—the loss of sales tax means fewer library books and more unfilled potholes. Local businesses also suffer—and when they suffer, the rest of the community may suffer because of a negative domino-effect. By not collecting sales taxes, Amazon and others like them enjoy at least a 7.5% price advantage when competing for customers. In businesses where competition is fierce and profit margins are low (bookselling, alas, comes to mind) that’s a huge advantage. If such tactics force local stores out of business, the negative domino-effect kicks in: i.e. the community loses all the tax revenue on the local sales that the now-defunct stores no longer collect.

Lower income people also get hurt—this is a sad fact that isn’t often discussed. Because sales tax is a flat rate tax, it is very regressive; lower income people pay a much higher percentage of their income in sales tax than more affluent people. Over the last several decades the sales tax rate has at least doubled, aggravating this disparity.

Amazon’s policies have made a bad situation worse: by not collecting sales tax from their on-line shoppers, they have, in effect, forced everyone else to cover the cost of local government. This hits hardest on lower income people—those who are unable to shop on-line. To be an internet shopper, you need at least four things: (1) a computer, (2) an internet connection, (3) a credit card, and (4) a fixed delivery address. There are many low income people who are without one or all of those, and they are the ones who are ultimately stuck with the bill for sales taxes.

Why Do They Do It?
Not Amazon—we know why they do it: their refusal to collect and pay sales tax gives them a huge competitive advantage.

No, the question is why do non-profit groups that support schools, libraries, parks, and other good causes become "Amazon Associates" and promote sales of Amazon.com products through their websites? Their instincts may be good—they’re trying to raise a little money through the affiliate-fees to support their cause—but the effect is totally self-destructive.

Such groups need to think about one fact: each sale that they promote through their website actually harms the cause they are working for. Why? Because the amount they receive in affiliate fees on such sales is actually less than the amount that the community loses in sales tax. Many such organizations exhort their members to make all their purchases through such Amazon links, but the members, thankfully, usually have more sense: they realize that the end result of such behavior would be to force local businesses to close, thus drying up all the sales tax revenues that are essential to their communities.

This is a maddening situation for local businesses. Not only do they collect and pay the sale taxes that their communities rely on, but most of them do hundreds of other things—some financial, some non-financial—to support local activities. In an earlier article (News & Reviews, March-April, 2006), we pointed to studies showing that for every $100 spent with a local retailer about $73 remains in the community—that’s $30 more than the $43 from a typical chain store. As great as that disparity is, it’s nothing compared to Amazon.com: every last penny of the $13 billion that they take in leaves the community.

This is an area where local groups can take a stand—they don’t have to wait for the Board of Equalization to get off of its collective posterior and enforce the law against Amazon. If such groups want to raise money through on-line affiliate programs, there are plenty of local businesses that can provide their members with a full on-line sales program that does not denude the community of its sales tax revenue (we have such a program; there are others as well).

How Does Amazon Get Away With It?
It’s simple: Amazon.com claims it is a purely out-of-state business with no local "nexus," and the Board of Equalization has been too timid to challenge them on it.

California law requires out-of-state companies to collect sales tax if they have "any representative, agent, salesperson, canvasser, independent contractor, or solicitor operating in this state" for the purpose of "selling, delivering, installing, assembling, or the taking of orders . . ." (sec. 6203; Rev & Taxation Code). It doesn’t take much for a company to fit under that law—almost any activity by any kind of agent will create "nexus." For example, an out-of-state company that solicited book sales to grade school students only through volunteer, unpaid teachers was found by the courts to have a nexus with the state. Likewise, a company that merely received requests for purchases from a small group of independent agents was ruled to have nexus. Nexus is the key: once a company has it, it is liable for sales taxes on all of its sales in the state—not just the ones involving such agents.

How does Amazon.com fit within that legal framework? It bursts the sides of the frame. It’s no exaggeration to say that Amazon.com probably has more "solicitors," "agents," and "representatives" in this state than most California-based businesses. Consider the Amazon Associates program mentioned above—there are probably well over 200,000 people and organizations actively soliciting sales for Amazon through websites, meetings, personal contacts and other activities in the state. The in-state activities of these agents are far more extensive than those of other companies that have been required to collect sales tax. In addition, Amazon continues to act from time to time as the on-line sales and distribution service for several local chain stores—you go in to see about videos that your local store has for sale, and you are likely to be directed to Amazon for the purchase. Finally, there is the Amazon Advantage program, in which private individuals arrange to sell merchandise through Amazon. Under that program, thousands of California residents each day deliver merchandise to other California residents using the Amazon system to consummate the sale. What is the difference between the purchase of, say, a power tool sold this way and one sold over the counter at your local hardware store? There is none—except the Amazon sale evades taxation.

The evidence of Amazon.com’s nexus in California is so overwhelming that it’s hard to see how anyone can ignore it. The only reed that their supporters cling to is a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Quill v. North Dakota) in which the Court said that a state could not impose sales tax liability if a company’s "only connection with customers in the [taxing] State is by common carrier or the United States mail." But the Quill case is a pre-internet decision—as far as the realities of on-line commerce are concerned, it might as well have been written in the Middle Ages. Unlike the relatively small, traditional mail-order company in that case, Amazon.com has a ubiquitous presence that has an impact on almost every aspect of modern commerce. Amazon’s reliance on the Quill case probably wouldn’t withstand the first challenge.

But first, there has to be a challenge—the Board of Equalization is the only agency that can do that. If the BOE is unwilling to force companies like Amazon to collect and pay taxes, it might as well shut down its operation: in the future there may not be any traditional retailers left to do the tax-collecting for them.

                                                                           — W. Petrocelli, Book Passage Bookstore, Corte Madera, CA