Around midnight last night in Senate, Amazon finally overcame strong opposition to win an exemption from collecting sales tax on in-state purchases. Only the House agreeing to some Senate amendments stands in the way of the retail giant building a new distribution center in Lexington County.
While we were on the losing side, the team of lobbyists fighting the principled fight to stop the unfair sales tax exemption was still able to smile. We had fought the good battle along with some staunch support from Senators Lee Bright, Kevin Bryant, Chip Campsen, Tom Davis, Mike Fair, Greg Gregory, Larry Grooms, Billy O’Dell, Mike Rose, Greg Ryberg and Phillip Shoopman.
Because of our opposition in defense of all other retailers in the state that compete with Amazon.com, the state now has a much better return on its give-aways to Amazon—60% more jobs and 39% more investment in the state.
The Senate also made the online giant guarantee that after they meet their 2000 new jobs goal they also have to maintain that at 1500 to keep the deal (the House had allowed Amazon to only maintain 1000 of the jobs long-term).
The loyal Senate opponents also tried to pass an amendment that would have required all the 2000 new jobs be South Carolina residents but Amazon refused and the vote was lost.
But Amazon did agree to one more important change—they now will tell their South Carolina customers twice that their purchase in most cases does require them to pay sales tax to the state. This message will come with confirmation of their purchase and on February first of the following year. The latter message will tell the customer exactly the total sales price of all their purchases with Amazon that occurred in the previous year. If the sales tax had not already been remitted to the SC Dept. of Revenue, it should be reported on their income tax filing.
Now there will no longer be any excuse that South Carolinians will not know that they owe the state sales tax and are legally bound to personally pay it. Plus, this record would presumably be available to tax auditors if requested from Amazon.
This final “Scared Straight” amendment doesn’t correct the unfair competitive advantage Amazon.com will have over our other brick-and-mortar/online South Carolina retailers, but it will help.
Showing posts with label Amazon.com;sales tax exemption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amazon.com;sales tax exemption. Show all posts
Friday, May 27, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
House stands with state’s small businesses
Congratulations to the South Carolina House!
Yesterday after nearly two hours of hot debate, Representatives voted not to give Amazon.com an exemption from collecting sales tax on in-state purchases. The vote turned out not to be even close.
A clear bi-partisan majority in the House established a new principle for the state’s big business recruitment efforts—do no harm to our existing small businesses.
That was the underlying problem with the Amazon.com sales tax deal. All month we and other business organizations have been saying that exempting Amazon.com from collecting sales tax would give it an unfair competitive advantage over our existing brick-and-mortar and online businesses. (Check out my WIS-TV editorial that ran yesterday afternoon before and during the floor debate.)
The Amazon.com supporters tried to change the subject to one of honoring our promise to Amazon.com to give them the sales tax deal. But no such contractual promise was ever given to Amazon.com.
In response to yesterday’s vote, Amazon.com announced that it was pulling out of building a distribution center in Lexington County. This could be a ploy to scare the legislature into yet giving in. Or it could be a clear indication that Amazon.com is not the corporate citizen we want here. One that either gets its way 100% or takes off for greener pastures.
If it’s the former, the House should not flinch and the Senate shouldn’t tremble because Amazon.com will eventually keep their contractual promise to build. If it’s the latter, our state will survive without Amazon.com and our ability to recruit business will be just fine. We’ll see Amazon.com in court to recover the tangible property already given to the company as part of the contractual incentive.
Comments reported in The State today from a Lexington County official are clearly over the top predicting that “It’s like no one will even look at coming here for 10 years.” You’d think that Sherman burned Columbia and Lexington again yesterday.
However, at the exact same time some legislators were predicting recruitment impotence yesterday if we turn down Amazon.com’s sweetheart sales tax deal, I received the S.C. Department of Commerce’s weekly e-newsletter, Commerce Communications. (I encourage you to sign up for this well designed, clearly written and informative publication.)
In the last 3 issues of this e-newsletter Commerce has announced six new or expanding businesses planning to invest $53.3 million and creating 568 new jobs in the state. Does anyone really believe that this kind of success is going to come to a grinding halt because Amazon.com couldn’t bully the South Carolina House into dropping our collective pants?
Of course not.
Now attention must be paid to the Senate. Amazon.com hasn’t been paying possibly six digit fees to lobbyists just to give up as long as the legislature still has a breath of life this session.
Yesterday after nearly two hours of hot debate, Representatives voted not to give Amazon.com an exemption from collecting sales tax on in-state purchases. The vote turned out not to be even close.
A clear bi-partisan majority in the House established a new principle for the state’s big business recruitment efforts—do no harm to our existing small businesses.
That was the underlying problem with the Amazon.com sales tax deal. All month we and other business organizations have been saying that exempting Amazon.com from collecting sales tax would give it an unfair competitive advantage over our existing brick-and-mortar and online businesses. (Check out my WIS-TV editorial that ran yesterday afternoon before and during the floor debate.)
The Amazon.com supporters tried to change the subject to one of honoring our promise to Amazon.com to give them the sales tax deal. But no such contractual promise was ever given to Amazon.com.
In response to yesterday’s vote, Amazon.com announced that it was pulling out of building a distribution center in Lexington County. This could be a ploy to scare the legislature into yet giving in. Or it could be a clear indication that Amazon.com is not the corporate citizen we want here. One that either gets its way 100% or takes off for greener pastures.
If it’s the former, the House should not flinch and the Senate shouldn’t tremble because Amazon.com will eventually keep their contractual promise to build. If it’s the latter, our state will survive without Amazon.com and our ability to recruit business will be just fine. We’ll see Amazon.com in court to recover the tangible property already given to the company as part of the contractual incentive.
Comments reported in The State today from a Lexington County official are clearly over the top predicting that “It’s like no one will even look at coming here for 10 years.” You’d think that Sherman burned Columbia and Lexington again yesterday.
However, at the exact same time some legislators were predicting recruitment impotence yesterday if we turn down Amazon.com’s sweetheart sales tax deal, I received the S.C. Department of Commerce’s weekly e-newsletter, Commerce Communications. (I encourage you to sign up for this well designed, clearly written and informative publication.)
In the last 3 issues of this e-newsletter Commerce has announced six new or expanding businesses planning to invest $53.3 million and creating 568 new jobs in the state. Does anyone really believe that this kind of success is going to come to a grinding halt because Amazon.com couldn’t bully the South Carolina House into dropping our collective pants?
Of course not.
Now attention must be paid to the Senate. Amazon.com hasn’t been paying possibly six digit fees to lobbyists just to give up as long as the legislature still has a breath of life this session.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Amazon will build in Lexington Co. without tax deal or we'll see them in court
It’s not often in a political debate that a key argument of one side gets exposed as a complete fraud. This is one of those rare times.
From the beginning of the Amazon.com controversy it was almost universally accepted that giving the company an exemption from collecting sales tax from in-state sales was a bad deal for all our other small retailers that compete with the online giant. And trying to help the economy of one county at the expense of small businesses across the state is simply not fair.
As one state Senator told me, “Frank, you’re probably right about everything but we made a promise that we have to honor.” For the opponents of the Amazon.com deal this has been the hardest objection to overcome even though we always believed that the only promise made was to try to get the tax deal approved by the Legislature. I, and probably most of you, had not seen the tangible evidence of our suspicion until now.
On December 23, 2010, the South Carolina Department of Commerce (DOC) and the South Carolina Coordination Council for Economic Development entered into an Incentive and Inducement Agreement with Amazon.com. Here is article 3.1.3 of that agreement.
In the competitive world of business recruitment, the contract is everything. If the promise is not on paper and signed, it doesn’t exist. Amazon.com knows that. Commerce knows that. The Senate (which has seen this Agreement) knows that. The House knows that. And most importantly the courts know that.
South Carolina has and will deliver everything we actually promised Amazon.com including the Department of Commerce’s “good faith, best efforts” to secure the sales tax deal. But when the Legislature does the right thing by turning down this request, Amazon.com will still build the distribution center in Lexington County….because that’s what they promised.
From the beginning of the Amazon.com controversy it was almost universally accepted that giving the company an exemption from collecting sales tax from in-state sales was a bad deal for all our other small retailers that compete with the online giant. And trying to help the economy of one county at the expense of small businesses across the state is simply not fair.
As one state Senator told me, “Frank, you’re probably right about everything but we made a promise that we have to honor.” For the opponents of the Amazon.com deal this has been the hardest objection to overcome even though we always believed that the only promise made was to try to get the tax deal approved by the Legislature. I, and probably most of you, had not seen the tangible evidence of our suspicion until now.
On December 23, 2010, the South Carolina Department of Commerce (DOC) and the South Carolina Coordination Council for Economic Development entered into an Incentive and Inducement Agreement with Amazon.com. Here is article 3.1.3 of that agreement.
3.1.3 Nexus Safe harbor Legislation. Section 12-6-60 of the Code of laws of South Carolina, 1976, as amended (the “SC. Code”), provided that owning or utilizing a distribution facility (as defined therein) within the State would not be considered in determining whether the company has nexus with the State for income tax, corporate license fee or sales tax purposes. However, this provision was repealed for tax years beginning after June 9, 2010. Subject to available resources and to the extent permitted by law, DOC agrees to use its good faith, best efforts to obtain legislation to renew and extend the nexus safe harbor provision.The State of South Carolina did not “promise” to give Amazon.com the sales tax deal. (Read Cindi Scoppe’s editorial in today’s The State.)
In the competitive world of business recruitment, the contract is everything. If the promise is not on paper and signed, it doesn’t exist. Amazon.com knows that. Commerce knows that. The Senate (which has seen this Agreement) knows that. The House knows that. And most importantly the courts know that.
South Carolina has and will deliver everything we actually promised Amazon.com including the Department of Commerce’s “good faith, best efforts” to secure the sales tax deal. But when the Legislature does the right thing by turning down this request, Amazon.com will still build the distribution center in Lexington County….because that’s what they promised.
+(124x76).jpg)
|
0
comments
Labels/Tags/Keywords:
Amazon.com,
Amazon.com;sales tax exemption,
Cindi Scoppe,
Lexington County,
South Carolina Department of Commerce
|
Monday, April 25, 2011
Amazon insists on tax breaks that help it compete against other retailers
The editorial below is from the Spartanburg Herald-Journal.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Imagine you own a small retail business. You've been selling books, cameras, auto parts or some other product for years. You've earned your clientele, paid your taxes and hired local employees.
In the process of building your business, you've helped build your community. But now you face a new competitive challenge. It isn't another store nearby or across town. It isn't even a big-box retailer backed by a huge national company. Your competitor isn't located in your town at all. It's on the Internet.
You find out your customers are buying from this online retailer because its prices are so low. They're low because the Internet business has so little overhead, doing business internationally out of just a few locations. Plus, the online retailer doesn't charge sales tax the way you must. You even learn that some people are coming to your store to check out various products and ask advice and then ordering those products online.
Then, you find out your state government is planning to use the taxes you pay to convince the online retailer to come to your state. The state is giving your competitor many incentives. At least, you think, once your competitor comes to your state, it will have to collect state sales taxes, leveling the playing field. But then you learn your state lawmakers are considering giving your competitor another benefit, letting it sell within the state without sales taxes.
Why, you wonder, is your state using your money to help your competitor drive you out of business?
It's not a hypothetical situation. It's the situation retailers across the state find themselves now that state officials are giving away incentives to lure an Amazon.com distribution center to Lexington County. They are considering exempting Amazon from collecting sales tax on in-state transactions.
Amazon sells just about everything, so it competes with most retailers. It competes with the businesses that make up the Main Streets of South Carolina. Amazon is promising to bring 1,200 jobs to Lexington County, but it competes with the businesses that employ thousands of South Carolinians statewide.
Why should Amazon be exempt from collecting state sales taxes while other retailers in the state are forced to collect the tax? Why should the state give an unfair competitive advantage to this new company at the expense of the other businesses in South Carolina?
There isn't a good reason. Gov. Nikki Haley, who has tried to stay on both sides of this controversy, says she doesn't want the state to break its promise to Amazon. That promise never should have been made. And whoever made it did not have the authority to change state law to make it happen.
This issue wouldn't be a problem if Congress had acted like it should and forced all Internet retailers to collect state sales taxes on all transactions. As it is, only online retailers with a physical presence in a state have to collect sales taxes for that state. There's no reason for South Carolina to compound this inequity by giving Amazon an enhanced competitive advantage once it comes to South Carolina.
If thats what's necessary to lure Amazon to the Palmetto State, it isn't a good enough corporate citizen for us to want it here.
Amazon insists on tax breaks that help
it compete against other retailers
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Imagine you own a small retail business. You've been selling books, cameras, auto parts or some other product for years. You've earned your clientele, paid your taxes and hired local employees.
In the process of building your business, you've helped build your community. But now you face a new competitive challenge. It isn't another store nearby or across town. It isn't even a big-box retailer backed by a huge national company. Your competitor isn't located in your town at all. It's on the Internet.
You find out your customers are buying from this online retailer because its prices are so low. They're low because the Internet business has so little overhead, doing business internationally out of just a few locations. Plus, the online retailer doesn't charge sales tax the way you must. You even learn that some people are coming to your store to check out various products and ask advice and then ordering those products online.
Then, you find out your state government is planning to use the taxes you pay to convince the online retailer to come to your state. The state is giving your competitor many incentives. At least, you think, once your competitor comes to your state, it will have to collect state sales taxes, leveling the playing field. But then you learn your state lawmakers are considering giving your competitor another benefit, letting it sell within the state without sales taxes.
Why, you wonder, is your state using your money to help your competitor drive you out of business?
It's not a hypothetical situation. It's the situation retailers across the state find themselves now that state officials are giving away incentives to lure an Amazon.com distribution center to Lexington County. They are considering exempting Amazon from collecting sales tax on in-state transactions.
Amazon sells just about everything, so it competes with most retailers. It competes with the businesses that make up the Main Streets of South Carolina. Amazon is promising to bring 1,200 jobs to Lexington County, but it competes with the businesses that employ thousands of South Carolinians statewide.
Why should Amazon be exempt from collecting state sales taxes while other retailers in the state are forced to collect the tax? Why should the state give an unfair competitive advantage to this new company at the expense of the other businesses in South Carolina?
There isn't a good reason. Gov. Nikki Haley, who has tried to stay on both sides of this controversy, says she doesn't want the state to break its promise to Amazon. That promise never should have been made. And whoever made it did not have the authority to change state law to make it happen.
This issue wouldn't be a problem if Congress had acted like it should and forced all Internet retailers to collect state sales taxes on all transactions. As it is, only online retailers with a physical presence in a state have to collect sales taxes for that state. There's no reason for South Carolina to compound this inequity by giving Amazon an enhanced competitive advantage once it comes to South Carolina.
If thats what's necessary to lure Amazon to the Palmetto State, it isn't a good enough corporate citizen for us to want it here.
|
|
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Amazon’s tantrum
Last week legislation was introduced in both the South Carolina House and Senate to exempt Amazon.com from collecting sales tax on sales to South Carolina residents from its proposed distribution center in Lexington County. The bills have an uphill fight.
Realizing that South Carolina was not going to be a pushover like all the other state’s it has bullied into getting its way over sales tax, Amazon.com threw a tantrum announcing it had stopped the hiring of 11 management positions for the Lexington County center.
Obviously this is a childish ploy to influence the legislative process. But if it should somehow be successful, Amazon.com will have shown small businesses a new lobbying tactic—stop hiring any new employees until we get what we want from the General Assembly. With over 100,000 small businesses in South Carolina can you imagine how effective this collective “holding our breath” can be?
But back to Amazon’s media effort. Their latest postcard to Lexington County residents (from the company’s new front group—Save Our Lexington Jobs) plays off the Wal-Mart advertising campaign by saying “building the economy in Lexington County has fallen victim to a Wal-Mart ROLLBACK.”
However, the word “rollback” is not what most small businesses across the state are interested in. They want to know if Amazon.com will blackmail our Legislature to ROLLOVER.
My earlier blogs lay out the arguments against the Amazon deal:Business organizations like The S. C. Small Business Chamber, the S.C. Chamber and the newly formed S.C. Alliance for Main Street Fairness are opposing the Amazon.com sales tax exemption for its obvious unfairness to all brick-and-mortar and on-line stores in the state. Tea Party groups across the state have registered their opposition to the deal directly to Governor Nikki Haley in a private meeting encouraging her to veto a bill if it reaches her desk (something she has said that she won’t do). Competing TV and radio commercials are airing statewide encouraging the public to contact legislators to support and oppose the Amazon sales tax deal.
April 5th--Selling Small Businesses down the Amazon
April 7th--Amazon.com: The bigger picture
April 8th--Amazon.com’s business plan revealed
Realizing that South Carolina was not going to be a pushover like all the other state’s it has bullied into getting its way over sales tax, Amazon.com threw a tantrum announcing it had stopped the hiring of 11 management positions for the Lexington County center.
Obviously this is a childish ploy to influence the legislative process. But if it should somehow be successful, Amazon.com will have shown small businesses a new lobbying tactic—stop hiring any new employees until we get what we want from the General Assembly. With over 100,000 small businesses in South Carolina can you imagine how effective this collective “holding our breath” can be?
But back to Amazon’s media effort. Their latest postcard to Lexington County residents (from the company’s new front group—Save Our Lexington Jobs) plays off the Wal-Mart advertising campaign by saying “building the economy in Lexington County has fallen victim to a Wal-Mart ROLLBACK.”
However, the word “rollback” is not what most small businesses across the state are interested in. They want to know if Amazon.com will blackmail our Legislature to ROLLOVER.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Amazon.com: The bigger picture
Today the Greater Lexington Chamber and Visitors Center will be holding a press conference to show its support for Amazon.com locating in Lexington County. This is certainly good economic news for that county and for the Midlands. The 1250 full-time jobs Amazon.com says it will create are welcomed.
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce is supportive of counties and the state responsibly recruiting big business. However, we are in opposition to the proposed sales tax exemption for Amazon.com that would give it an unfair competitive advantage over other South Carolina small businesses.
In addition to the small-business fairness issue, the following points also need to be made:
1. This is not an either/or situation. Amazon.com has never made a public statement that it will not build a distribution center if it does not receive a sales tax exemption. Until that happens we must assume that all the other incentives being provided (but not listed in the press conference announcement) such as $4 million in free land, $3200 state tax credit for every worker hired, reduced property tax, no corporate income tax and probably others are sufficient for Amazon.com to keep its plans to build.
2. If economic development officials have been told by Amazon.com that it will not build if it does not receive a sales tax exemption, then they need to tell the public and explain why they are willing to encourage shoppers to purchase from a big business with deep pockets at the expense of our struggling small businesses.
3. An Amazon.com distribution center is not necessarily going to be a long-time employer in Lexington County. This is not a corporate headquarters setting up community roots. The facility is not a manufacturing plant like Michelin that will have decades of use and a skilled labor force thus tying the corporation to the area for many years to come. While a distribution center is nice, it can be replicated in any state once the immediate benefits (incentives) have been exhausted.
4. The issue of internet sales tax is a federal and state issue. Yes, as noted in the aforementioned press release, Congress can change the law concerning internet sales to require “all retailers to collect sales taxes”. But the states, such as South Carolina, can and have passed laws also pertaining to internet sales. South Carolina does not have to wait until Congress acts to protect its sales tax revenue the best it can. In fact, it has passed a law to do just that, which is why Amazon.com is seeking an exemption.
5. In the paragraph above, the word retailers is used by sales-tax exemption proponents in the reference to actions Congress can take that would impact on Amazon.com’s sales tax responsibilities. This is an affirmation that Amazon.com is a retailer and by definition of South Carolina law it is responsible for collecting sales tax. If Amazon.com believes that it is truly not a retail operation then it should challenge the state in court instead of seeking an exemption, which is an admission of its retail status.
6. If the incentives offered to Amazon.com only came from Lexington County taxpayers, The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce might not have a position. However, this is not just a local issue. It is one that impacts every small business and taxpayer in the state. While the immediate economic benefits will be to the West Columbia and Cayce communities including some small businesses, the sales tax exemption will be paid for by every small business (brick and mortar and otherwise) in the state that will lose a sale because Amazon.com can charge 6 percent less if it does not have to add a sales tax. It will be paid for by every parent in the state that will have less state funds going to their child’s school because a sales tax is not be collected (and most likely not being reported by the internet purchaser). It will be paid for by South Carolinians from Seneca to Bluffton. This is a statewide issue of significant importance to every small business and citizen.
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce encourages Amazon.com to drop its demand for a sales tax exemption, declare victory for all the other incentives it is receiving and deliver on its promise of economic development for Lexington County.
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce is supportive of counties and the state responsibly recruiting big business. However, we are in opposition to the proposed sales tax exemption for Amazon.com that would give it an unfair competitive advantage over other South Carolina small businesses.
In addition to the small-business fairness issue, the following points also need to be made:
1. This is not an either/or situation. Amazon.com has never made a public statement that it will not build a distribution center if it does not receive a sales tax exemption. Until that happens we must assume that all the other incentives being provided (but not listed in the press conference announcement) such as $4 million in free land, $3200 state tax credit for every worker hired, reduced property tax, no corporate income tax and probably others are sufficient for Amazon.com to keep its plans to build.
2. If economic development officials have been told by Amazon.com that it will not build if it does not receive a sales tax exemption, then they need to tell the public and explain why they are willing to encourage shoppers to purchase from a big business with deep pockets at the expense of our struggling small businesses.
3. An Amazon.com distribution center is not necessarily going to be a long-time employer in Lexington County. This is not a corporate headquarters setting up community roots. The facility is not a manufacturing plant like Michelin that will have decades of use and a skilled labor force thus tying the corporation to the area for many years to come. While a distribution center is nice, it can be replicated in any state once the immediate benefits (incentives) have been exhausted.
4. The issue of internet sales tax is a federal and state issue. Yes, as noted in the aforementioned press release, Congress can change the law concerning internet sales to require “all retailers to collect sales taxes”. But the states, such as South Carolina, can and have passed laws also pertaining to internet sales. South Carolina does not have to wait until Congress acts to protect its sales tax revenue the best it can. In fact, it has passed a law to do just that, which is why Amazon.com is seeking an exemption.
5. In the paragraph above, the word retailers is used by sales-tax exemption proponents in the reference to actions Congress can take that would impact on Amazon.com’s sales tax responsibilities. This is an affirmation that Amazon.com is a retailer and by definition of South Carolina law it is responsible for collecting sales tax. If Amazon.com believes that it is truly not a retail operation then it should challenge the state in court instead of seeking an exemption, which is an admission of its retail status.
6. If the incentives offered to Amazon.com only came from Lexington County taxpayers, The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce might not have a position. However, this is not just a local issue. It is one that impacts every small business and taxpayer in the state. While the immediate economic benefits will be to the West Columbia and Cayce communities including some small businesses, the sales tax exemption will be paid for by every small business (brick and mortar and otherwise) in the state that will lose a sale because Amazon.com can charge 6 percent less if it does not have to add a sales tax. It will be paid for by every parent in the state that will have less state funds going to their child’s school because a sales tax is not be collected (and most likely not being reported by the internet purchaser). It will be paid for by South Carolinians from Seneca to Bluffton. This is a statewide issue of significant importance to every small business and citizen.
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce encourages Amazon.com to drop its demand for a sales tax exemption, declare victory for all the other incentives it is receiving and deliver on its promise of economic development for Lexington County.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Selling Small Businesses down the Amazon
Amazon.com wants you to buy from them and not from our local small businesses. And the company wants to use your tax dollars to make that happen.
That’s what all the controversy is about over the proposed sales tax exemption for a new Amazon distribution center in Lexington County. Should the state create an unlevel playing field between Amazon.com and its competitors to entice the company to create some jobs?
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber doesn’t think so. Below is the letter being delivered to the members of the S.C. House today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 5, 2011
South Carolina House of Representatives
State House
Columbia, SC
Re: Sales Tax Exemption for Amazon
Dear Representative,
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce opposes a sales tax exemption for the proposed Amazon distribution center in Lexington County.
Since 2002 our position has been that "the state should not be encouraging the public to make purchases via the internet rather than buying from South Carolina brick and mortar stores. The state should not be creating an uneven playing field when it comes to 'use tax' or sales tax collection."
We concur with the points of others who also oppose the tax exemption. This issue is fundamentally one of fairness to the small businesses that compete with big businesses. Amazon already has competitive advantages in this regard. The state does not need to artificially give them another one that lowers their costs.
If Amazon should cancel their plans to locate here because no tax exemption is given, we might have only accelerated a decision to eventually leave the state as other big businesses have done when incentives end. In such a scenario, the state and county would have been far better off investing the same amount money in promoting the health of existing small businesses that also can create jobs and won’t leave for greener pastures.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Frank Knapp, Jr.
President & CEO
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce
That’s what all the controversy is about over the proposed sales tax exemption for a new Amazon distribution center in Lexington County. Should the state create an unlevel playing field between Amazon.com and its competitors to entice the company to create some jobs?
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber doesn’t think so. Below is the letter being delivered to the members of the S.C. House today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 5, 2011
South Carolina House of Representatives
State House
Columbia, SC
Re: Sales Tax Exemption for Amazon
Dear Representative,
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce opposes a sales tax exemption for the proposed Amazon distribution center in Lexington County.
Since 2002 our position has been that "the state should not be encouraging the public to make purchases via the internet rather than buying from South Carolina brick and mortar stores. The state should not be creating an uneven playing field when it comes to 'use tax' or sales tax collection."
We concur with the points of others who also oppose the tax exemption. This issue is fundamentally one of fairness to the small businesses that compete with big businesses. Amazon already has competitive advantages in this regard. The state does not need to artificially give them another one that lowers their costs.
If Amazon should cancel their plans to locate here because no tax exemption is given, we might have only accelerated a decision to eventually leave the state as other big businesses have done when incentives end. In such a scenario, the state and county would have been far better off investing the same amount money in promoting the health of existing small businesses that also can create jobs and won’t leave for greener pastures.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Frank Knapp, Jr.
President & CEO
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)