State Treasurer and Newton resident Steven Grossman said this week that the state should negotiate a sales tax agreement with Amazon, and that Congress should pass a federal law that would allow states to collect $23 billion in online sales taxes nationwide.
“While I never like to see taxes go up, nevertheless, this is an issue of fairness, Main Street fairness. We have a half-million people that work in the retail sector; bookstores and others are at a competitive disadvantage. They lose lots of sales because they don’t get a chance to sell at a competitive price. Amazon is selling books at 6.25 percent lower prices than you can get them at a little bookstore,” Grossman said.
The Massachusetts Main Street Fairness Coalition estimates that an agreement with Amazon could boost state coffers by between $25 million and $45 million in additional sales tax revenue.
Isn’t Treasurer Grossman’s about a half-step behind on this? Amazon doesn’t collect sales tax for purchases delivered to Massachusetts because Amazon has no physical presence in the Commonwealth. But, Amazon is moving to same-day delivery, which will require local warehouses. In other words, Amazon’s business strategy already anticipates collecting sales tax in Massachusetts.
Amazon is in Kendall Square.
Sean, I was struck more by the headline: “How Amazon’s ambitious new push for same-day delivery will destroy local retail.” Yikes!
All they need to do is set up a separate delivery entity. They were idiots for buying the robotics company in Cambridge and plastering Amazon branding all over it. I can’t believe they were so stupid
Massachusetts already assesses a “6.25% use tax” on out of-state purchases that are used in-state, as a proxy for sales tax on them. I find that the “safe harbor” amount is always very close to what would have been the sales tax on my purchases that qualified for it. If people pay this assessment annually with their state tax, then the agreement proposed by the Treasurer would be largely a wash. Maybe that’s a big “if” but I pay the safe-harbor amount. How many people do?
Steve Grossman says, “I never like to see taxes go up,” but he sure doesn’t mind the Treasurer’s Office stealing money from countless Massachusetts residents. [That’s right, I said “stealing.”]
I suppose it’s not Grossman’s fault. He didn’t write the laws. But his office is way too quick to snatch money from what the State terms “inactive” accounts at banks and brokerage houses. It’s disgraceful!
Sure, you can reclaim money or other valuables that the Treasurer’s Office steals, but they make you jump through hoops to get YOUR money back. I hate to see people victimized by a government that’s supposed to be protecting them. Unfortunately many of the victims in these cases are elderly people who stash money in a bank, and make the mistake of thinking their money will actually still be there when they go to retrieve it.
I always liked Steve Grossman. Thought he was a stand-up guy. But as I’ve realized how many people are being ripped off by this government scheme, I’ve lost a lot of respect for him.
Sorry, I know this was off topic, but I’m really angry about it.
Did someone take Mike Striar’s sign-in?? He’d rather Bank of Shenanigans keep unclaimed accounts, and our heirs never know? My business writes you a check and it gets lost, never cashed, we can keep the funds?? Wow
Hoss– My rant above was obviously not my most articulate post. I’m just ticked-off, because I know too many people who are dealing with the Treasurer’s office right now trying to recover their own money. I can tell by the example you used in your post, that I probably didn’t explain myself well enough. But let me address your example first.
If your company wrote me a check that I lost or never cashed, one of two things would happen. I could forget about it, in which case your company would keep the money. Or, I have a right to ask you to replace the check, and you would have a legal obligation to do so. Under no circumstance I can think of, would the State claim that money. They would never have a reason to even know about the check. So that example really doesn’t apply to what I’m talking about.
The type of situation I’m referring to is very different from your example. Many people, particularly older people have a bank or brokerage account that they only use as a “safe” place to hold their funds. But if that account shows no activity over a couple of years, [checks, ATM use, etc.], the Treasurer’s Office takes their money. The owner has a right to reclaim their funds, but the process can be time consuming and difficult. That’s the type of thing I’m referring to.
Mike Striar — The escheatment rules have a mandatory due diligence requirement meaning the agent must attempt to find the account holder prior to remitting the funds to the state. Imagine how difficult it would be for us to identify the funds in an environment where agents did not remit balances to the state. Someone that once lived in Massachusetts that did banking with Shawmut, or Bank of New England would have a heck of a time finding the right institution that decades later took the funds.
Also Mike, if a business writes you a check and you don’t cash it, they must remit the funds to the state after attempting to find you (under the very same rules).
Hoss– Thanks for teaching me something new. I had no idea a business had an obligation to turn funds over to State on an un-cashed check.
I’ll set that aside, to jump back to my original point. I know that financial institutions are required to attempt notification to an account holder before turning funds over to the State. That process doesn’t work particularly well. If it did work well, there wouldn’t be so many [live] people with seized accounts. Here are a couple of reasons it doesn’t work…
I don’t know about you, but I get loads of junk mail and solicitations from banks and brokerages. Some I have accounts with, others I don’t. If I see a bank statement, I open it. If it’s not a statement, I usually toss it out unopened. Maybe that’s my mistake. But if it is my mistake, I’m one of thousands of people making that same mistake.
Also, it’s very common these days for people to opt out of paper statements, and receive their statements electronically instead. Just as mail that appears to be junk mail gets discarded, the same thing applies to spam. In fact, an electronic notification of account seizure may very well end up in a computers spam filter, never seen by the intended recipient.
Those are two reasons I believe notification of account seizures should require a certified letter.
What’s the point of seizing an account, and then having to return those funds to their rightful owner? In those cases, it seems like the State wastes a tremendous amount of manpower and resources with no net benefit.
I also think the State pulls the trigger and seizes accounts too quickly. Again, if that were not the case, there wouldn’t be so many people having to jump through bureaucratic hoops to reclaim their own money. The high number of these cases is indicative of a problem with the process.
I think the problem would be solved by mandating a longer period of inactivity before an account is seized, plus a certified mail notification requirement. Solving the problem would save the State money, and save many people a great deal of aggravation.
Well Mike, if sending a letter to a live, alert person isn’t effective, imagine what happens in other cases. People move, people lose it mentally, and people die. On the other side, banks and fiduciaries change hands, they go bust, and some attempt fraud. Three years of inactivity with attempts to find the owner seems reasonable. The extent of those attempts often depends on the size of the account.
Here’s a link to search all states that have a mutual agreement to report unclaimed property: http://www.missingmoney.com I urge everyone to check this site every few years and to be sure to type in maiden names and possible misspellings. And be sure to try helping older relatives by doing a search for them