Sears Catalog Operated in the 20th century as well. As did many other mail-order catalogs.
Vast majority of the country is like this. Heck I the town I did live before only had a Radio Shack. About 5 years after I left a Best Buy opened and people freaked. If you wanted to find a computer shop, you had to drive about 30 mins.
I shopped around. No local computer shops. Only 2 places carried SATA cables. Best Buy, and Radio Shack. Both were $25.
I could also go to other online stores that offers free shipping. $4 + nada + nada + $4. Still cheaper.
That is *IF* somebody brings in an ad, then they verify it... So with a hassle, they will price match. Or I can just buy it from Amazon with no hassle.
And I did compare products that are exactly the same The cables were both in a bag, no mention of "Gold plated Connectors!!!!" or other such gimmick. But just for fun I did find an item to compare at 2 locations. Monsters University Pre-Order (Blueray + DVD) at Walmart and Amazon. Using 7.25% sales tax: Walmart (29.96 + 2.17 = $32.13) and Amazon (23.39 + 3.98 = 27.27). Amazon's total is cheaper than Walmart pre-tax price. Even with tax, it would still be cheaper. Plus I get to order it from my home, and have it on my door step on day of release.
Still: It's not Sales tax. It's the price.
I didn't "get it right now"... And Best Buy (and other B&M stores) are claiming it's "Sales Tax" why people aren't buying their stuff.
On another note: Last time I was in a KMart, I found some CD Jewel cases for $5.99 (+ tax). Amazon's price was $9.99 (+ shipping). KMart sold some CD cases that day.
For a second example:
Monsters University Blu-Ray + DVD Combo pack (not Collector's Edition)
Local Tax rate: 7.25%
Place: Item Price + Shipping + Tax = Total
WalMart: 29.96 + 0 + $2.17 = $32.13
Amazon: 23.29 + $3.98 + 0 = $27.27
Amazon's total price is still cheaper than WalMart's list price. Even if there was a sales tax, Amazon would still be cheaper. And if I buy a bit more, the shipping cost will be paid by Amazon.
And the "With big items, it makes a difference"... No, it doesn't. Big items are normally... Big and or heavy. Lets say a TV. The shipping cost of that isn't cheap... Very likely it's higher than what any sales tax that would apply. And either the customer pays it (still being cheaper than the B&M store), or the store eats the cost...
It makes perfect sense. Prices are cheaper, and it's not due to that evil sales tax being forced on B&M stores.
Lets look at the SATA cable example.
Best Buy: Cost of Item: $25. Shipping: Free. Sales Tax (7.25%): 1.81 = Total: $26.81.
Amazon: Cost of item: $4. Shipping fee: $4.50 (yes more than 100% of the item's cost), Sales Tax (None) = Total: $8.50.
Which one gets the sale?
Now lets say sales tax is collected (If I live in a state with an Amazon hub): $4 + 4.50 + (0.29) = $8.79. Heck even if the shipping is taxed it's cheaper (+0.62).
I think this will drive omnichannel commerce and remove the 10% price advantage that companies like Amazon and Overstock enjoyed with respect to Brick and mortar stores. Competition will increase - and it can only be better for consumers.
Bull. Flat out bull.
People don't pick Amazon or Overstock to save on sales tax... they do it because the prices are cheaper. When I head to BestBuy and find a SATA cable listed for 25 bucks, and Amazon has it for 4.50... I don't pick Amazon because I "save" 7.25% in sales tax.
Plus those Brick & Mortar stores don't charge shipping... Shipping is almost always higher than sales tax. Now I know you are going to say "But Amazon offers free shipping for orders of $35 or more!"... So does UPS ship for free on those orders? No. Amazon eats the cost to encourage people to buy more. So why doesn't the Brick & Mortar stores offer "We pay the sales tax for all orders over $X!"??? They can reduce the price by what ever the local tax rate is (7.25%) easily enough. They don't because they know that isn't the reason why people are shopping online.
There is a good reason why the SCOTUS refused to hear this: It would be struck down. Article 1, section 9 of the US Constitution states: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." To put it simply: If I own a store in New Mexico, and I sell to somebody who lives in a different state... I don't collect any taxes or duties on that item. If I have a store in that state, I will have to collect taxes.
Sears & Roebuck had the same sales model as Amazon back in the late 1800's. They didn't collect sales tax either.
Sears sold things by a mail-order catalog.
Customers would read the mail-order catalog, and use a mail-in order form for items, with payment.
After receiving the order and payment, Sears would deliver the requested item.
Amazon does the same thing, just replace "Mail-order/mail-in" with "Online". Changing the way one reads a catalog, or orders items doesn't affect the law. If somebody uses a telephone, it didn't change it, neither should a computer.
Stores in town lost customers due to this, not because of "They don't collect sales tax" but because they offered so much more, at a cheaper price. The brick & mortars did have a "You get it now" features instead of having to wait 2 weeks... but for many, the savings was well worth the wait.
Every year premiums are updated. Every insurance company (health, car, home, etc) does this.
ACA was written with this in mind and in full knowledge that all plans will be forced to lose money, or change to meet the minimum federal guidelines.
If a premium goes up $5 per year, they shouldn't be forced to change the plan. If a person is insured by a company, then as long as they carry insurance through that company, they should be grandfathered. If the company changes the plan, the customer can go someplace else and 'experience' the 'joy' of the exchanges.
Premiums change every year. Obamacare was written so if there is a change (including any changes to premiums, as little as a $5 change), the new policy will have to be 'updated' to meet Federal guidelines.
What would I do? Only require insurance companies to adhere to federal guidelines for plans to be put on the exchange. Allow non-exchange policies to qualify for the individual mandate (or better yet, get rid of the individual mandate).
No his plan got cancelled because it didn't meet new federal requirements, idiot. Just like mine did.
And my last mod point just expired...
Blue Cross had a plan that they liked. Blue Cross had a plan the customer liked. Both were happy. Obama said "If you like your plan you can keep it"... Knowing that the law would require the plan to be changed to meet the requirement. He tried to spin this as "removing the under-insured" but no... People had plans they liked.
Blue Cross now has to offer "Government Approved" plans, and I'm sure all the canceled policy holders got a note of what new "Government Approved" plans they can switch to (With the hike in premiums).
Ever now and then we need a reminder that: There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Here is a video from Numberphile on the subject.
The short version is: Mathematics isn't plural. There isn't "One Mathematic, two Mathematics". The word mathematics comes from a translation where an X was changed to ics, and when somebody came up with the abbreviation for it, they made assumed it was plural, and made the abbreviation plural too (Maths), while others saw it singular and kept it that way (Math).
So you are saying:
Asking people to be treated as well as Corporations is not fair?
Asking people who are making over 3x the nation's average pay to NOT get subsidies (while people making average aren't getting subsidies)... that's not fair?
Funding everything + Obamacare + giving citizens the same deal as corporations + making some rather rich people pay their own way... how is that not fair?
The last given to the Senate by the House (linky), before the shutdown, was: Pay for everything, including Obamacare, delay individual mandate for 1 year (Pres. Obama delayed the Corporate Mandate for 1 year, why not people too? People before Corporations right?) and cancel subsidies for lawmakers (Senators and Representatives) to pay for their personal health insurance (they make avg $174,000/year, people in the private sector making 1/3 that won't get subsidies...) and it was rejected.
To me that deal seems rather reasonable, especally with the hardships seen trying to get health insurance through the exchange website.
Here is a nice back and forth with a what compromises were offered and refused.
I tried 3 times just to get a quote from the healthcare.gov site. Every time it said "Try again later". Spent 30-45 mins.
I tried once to get a quote on 2 private sector sites (One a 'market place' style with 4 companies, one directly from a insurance provider). Both of them I had an estimate in about 3-5 minutes.