CA tax on unbundled price

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by eVolcre, Jun 15, 2010.

  1. eVolcre macrumors 65816

    eVolcre

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    #1
    This is ridiculous. Apple.com pricing on the iPhone for CA is now 257! Does ATT do the same thing?

    eV
     
  2. Lexoticstylez02 macrumors 6502a

    Lexoticstylez02

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Location:
    Orlando, Florida
  3. dave006 Contributor

    dave006

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Location:
    Just West of East
    #3
    Yes the State of CA requires the tax to be collected based on the un-subsidized price. You join two other fine states; MA and RI in this fine distinction. :rolleyes:

    Dave
     
  4. ItalianBoston macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    Boston
    #4
    They love to rape you every way they can. I'm used to it, I live in Ma.
     
  5. tahoeroscoe macrumors regular

    tahoeroscoe

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2009
    Location:
    California
  6. nszzya macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    #6
    ATT taxed me only on the discounted price. I saved $38 x 2! Sweet!
     
  7. eVolcre thread starter macrumors 65816

    eVolcre

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    #7
    So it's only an Apple thing? Doesn't seem right ...
     
  8. doubleatheman macrumors 6502a

    doubleatheman

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    #8
    Got taxed on the $699 price at 9%

    Got to love California!!!

    edit: my total tax was: 62.91

    edit 2: ordered in my local att store.
     
  9. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #9
    No, I doubt the poster lives in CA

    The law applies to all companies
     
  10. Mosco macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 26, 2002
    #10
    for what its worth, the tax on ATT is the estimated tax. If you read the fine print it says they won't give you the actual tax amount until they send you the shipping email.
     
  11. nszzya macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    #11
    :mad:
     
  12. caligurl macrumors 68030

    caligurl

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    socal
    #12
    that's got to be the STUPIDEST law ever.... if something is "on sale" which techincally the phones are... then we should only pay sales tax on the price paid.... if a car is on sale... i pay on the price i pay... if a $300 dress is on sale for $50... i pay sales tax on the $50... NOT the original $300.... really we do get screwed here in cali.. but it's been that way forever... way back when i got my very first cell phone i remember being ticked about it... .GRRRRRRR :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
     
  13. advan macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    #13
    From my confirmation email:

    [​IMG]

    It's not limited to California...I feel bad for anyone ordering these states :(
     
  14. caligurl macrumors 68030

    caligurl

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    socal
    #14
    the kicker is... even NY... the tax capital of the US... doesn't charge on the retail price...
     
  15. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #15
    Your logic is flawed

    A subsidized phone is not "on sale". The cost of the phone is 699 or whatever but ATT is letting you have it cheaper in exchange for signing a contract. That does not mean the phone is worth subsidized price

    A sale, in your examples, is the full, modified, retail price with NO stipulations when buying it

    I personally think taxing on the unsubsidized price makes the most sense rather than on the subsidized price

    PS: Why is NY not having this the "kicker"? It is a state law.
     
  16. brian4610 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    #16
    the best part is that we pay the tax on the unbundled phone that is really being purchased at a subsidized price, but then we get to pay taxes on the service that gives us the subsidized price!

    How is this state in debt?
     
  17. eldy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Location:
    The City
    #17
    at least they're not charging some lcd recycling fee.
     
  18. Queen of Spades macrumors 68030

    Queen of Spades

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Location:
    The Iron Throne
    #18
    You know what's annoying? I lived in Boston for the 3G and 3GS launches, and was extremely bitter over this little rule. Then I moved to Los Angeles, and though I had escaped this BS. Nope.

    Talk about getting bent over. California can suck it, this is why I stopped using newegg and while i'll nearly always order online.
     
  19. billy3785 macrumors regular

    billy3785

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #19
    that is the worst. so annoying when you go to best buy and they tack on theose @$40 recycling fees. like whoa~! HANG ON!
     
  20. sdsvtdriver macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Location:
    Southern California
    #20
    instead of complaining online, write your reps and complain. They voted this law to be.
     
  21. mdwsta4 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    #21
    I agree it's ridiculous. $68 in tax for mine.
     
  22. pooryou macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    #22
    AT&T should pay the tax on the part they are subsidizing.
     
  23. Mliii macrumors 65816

    Mliii

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Location:
    Southern California
    #23
    OP, I feel your pain!:mad:
    Just ONE MORE thing to dislike about our masters in Sacramento!:eek:
     
  24. Mliii macrumors 65816

    Mliii

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Location:
    Southern California
    #24
    COULD they do it? Yes, they could lower their price by the tax amount.
    Will they do it?
    YEAHRIGHT:rolleyes:

    And that's not how the law in California is written...:(
     
  25. pooryou macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    #25
    That's why we need competition between carriers.
     

Share This Page