Tax Free Apple Dealer in CA
- Thread starter openaperture
- Start date
- Status
[edit] Should think before I post... That makes no sense.
Amazon is an authorized reseller... Are they collecting tax in CA now?
To save some money I'd go through the refurb store, otherwise assuming you'll be skipping out on the use tax I'd probably shop somewhere like B&H or J&R. Small Dog is another one I've heard about a bunch but have no experience myself. I know theres a bunch more but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
B&H and J&R are your best bets. Good service, fast shipping. Another option is Vanns, though you probably have to call them for best pricing.
Small Dog is a longstanding indie Mac dealer, but they will charge MSRP. You might consider PowerMax in Oregon, which has no state sales tax and therefore won't charge you any. Their free ground shipping might be faster than J&R's or B&H's to you, since both of those companies are in NY.
mgldan":1kh5dmak said:
Small Dog needs you to visit one of the stores physically once for first time buyers of current Apple products and register for one of its programs before you can start ordering online (since online orders are only for "previous customers")? See the FAQ.
For CA, Powermax is good since it's closer. Also, Gary at Powermax is quite responsive for answering questions on chat or over the phone.
[url=http://meincmagazine.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=24220123#p24220123:27qga66o said:
Really? In *this* economy?
I wish the U.S. would have a GST/VAT refund program like Canada, Australia, etc., so that temporary visitors can support U.S. businesses/brands without getting pinched by taxes that may not provide a good return for them.
[url=http://meincmagazine.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=24220123#p24220123:1t9j5qxl said:
LMAO, best post of the day.
Who is ripping who off exactly?
Did you know that even before CA law was changed so that retailers like Amazon were required to collect taxes for the state, that YOU were supposed to pay those taxes to the state yourself? All that has changed is that Amazon is now doing that for you. Of course, that makes it harder to avoid paying what you were supposed to be paying the state.
-K
-K
It's called use tax, which is required of goods that you do not pay sales tax on. Since people do NOT tend to do that (even though it is an item on your CA tax return), they have started making laws that require out of state businesses to collect the sales tax where they did not have to before.
So, you always had to pay that percentage, now it's just not as easy to avoid. Businesses that don't have to collect it have an advantage over ones that do, and guess who loses in that transaction? Californians, since CA doesn't get that money, and CA businesses face unfair competition from out of state companies.
So, you always had to pay that percentage, now it's just not as easy to avoid. Businesses that don't have to collect it have an advantage over ones that do, and guess who loses in that transaction? Californians, since CA doesn't get that money, and CA businesses face unfair competition from out of state companies.
[url=http://meincmagazine.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=24362889#p24362889:2kkzrtpd said:
There are aspects you seem to have missed. They've been discussed in the recent article and comments about the senate considering the act for online sales tax collection.
Here's something from another perspective. Now out-of-state businesses have to deal with around 3600 different tax rates and put up with "taxation without representation" in states, cities and counties where they have no presence (and from where they likely don't gain anything from the sales tax spends). Businesses that have a physical presence almost everywhere, big ones like Wal-Mart, Best Buy and others who pushed for taxes to be collected by sellers on all online sales, get to crush smaller businesses that are "online only." The low threshold of $1 million in annual revenues as the bar for businesses to be forced to collect and pay these taxes seems ridiculous. Say you're into selling laptops, you'd cross this limit in about 2000 laptops a year (that's 166 laptops a month) - assuming you sell cheap $500 laptops. With measly margins and not-so-high volumes like big corporations, you'd find this new law (once it becomes law) a burden.
Of course, this depends on the kind of business, but there are many things that the recent bill has not thought through well.
This is an unfortunate consequence, but one that can be dealt with quite efficiently in this day and age.[url=http://meincmagazine.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=24365075#p24365075:lo0uumod said:
You seem to misunderstand who is paying the tax. The _buyer_ is paying the tax to his own state, where he is represented, and where he benefits from tax revenue through roads, bridges, public safety, schools etc etc etc. The seller is just doing record-keeping.
Why should Cali favor out-of-state small businesses over in-state small businesses which actually provide jobs to Californians? The idea that out-of-state businesses should be privileged is simply ridiculous at a policy level.
If you want to argue for policy that gives some advantage to small businesses, one can perhaps make some argument for that, but it would have to include in-state small businesses to make any sense at all as policy.
It's still far more efficient to have the businesses, even fairly small ones, do the record-keeping than it is to ask every single taxpayer in Cali to keep records on every online purchase he makes. Unless you're advocating for cheating on taxes, the alternative really doesn't make sense.
- Status