Open Letter to Jeff Bezos on Terminating CA Amazon Associates

Amazon uses sales partners as pawns in fight with CA government

US NewsJune 2011 • Views: 36,775

As you may have heard, Amazon has suddenly discontinued their Associates program for about 25,000 California residents, many of them small website owners, because of the new sales tax law just signed by Governor Brown. Yes, this includes Little Green Footballs; that’s why I removed our left sidebar links to shop at Amazon.

Here’s An Open Letter To Jeff Bezos On Terminating The Amazon Affiliate Program In California by Danny Sullivan, who says everything that should be said. Read the whole thing (especially if you’re an Amazon Associate).

Jump to bottom

136 comments

sattv4u2 Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:13:06pm

, many of them small website owners, because of the new sales tax law just signed by Governor Brown

I read about this earlier today and was going to ask you if/how it affects you

Charles Johnson Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:14:35pm

re: #1 sattv4u2

, many of them small website owners, because of the new sales tax law just signed by Governor Brown

I read about this earlier today and was going to ask you if/how it affects you

Yes, it does. I got an email yesterday saying I had until September 30th, then another email this morning saying, nope, it's over right now.

jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:17:17pm

re: #2 Charles

Yes, it does. I got an email yesterday saying I had until September 30th, then another email this morning saying, nope, it's over right now.

Sounds like you're up a river.... (puts on sun glasses) the Amazon river...

YEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!

Vicious Babushka Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:17:34pm

Charles, have you checked out Linkshare affiliates? They have a huge number of vendor programs and you can choose which products to feature.

Charles Johnson Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:18:01pm

Pretty brutal termination after years of helping them sell merchandise, if you ask me.

sattv4u2 Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:18:46pm

re: #2 Charles

Yes, it does. I got an email yesterday saying I had until September 30th, then another email this morning saying, nope, it's over right now.

Sorry to hear that

mr.fusion Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:19:08pm

Sounds to me (without knowing much about the situation) like Amazon decided to Go Galt

Vicious Babushka Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:20:10pm

Linkshare partnerships also offer from 8-12% commissions, which is much better than the crappy terms that Amazon provides.

AK-47% Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:20:15pm

re: #5 Charles

Pretty brutal termination after years of helping them sell merchandise, if you ask me.

they will claim that they were forced into it

Vicious Babushka Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:26:40pm

When Amazon first launched their affiliate program, they offered 15% commission on all items purchased through a direct product link. Then, they changed that to a "tiered system" where the commissions got smaller and smaller.

I used to make over $200 a quarter from Amazon referrals, now it's only about $10-$20 a quarter.

This is suck.

sattv4u2 Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:27:55pm

re: #2 Charles

re: #6 sattv4u2

I (sorta) know what it feels like

When (at the time) RCA rolled out their small dish satellite service (DIRECT TV) they toured the country recruiting us (satellite TV stores) saying that for an investment we would have a protected territory and they wouldn't sell through mass merchandisers (SEARS,,, RADIO SHACK,, etc) as they wanted Satellite "professionals" selling/ installing their product

Many of us did sign up and invest and within a year they did start selling through the chain stores

There was no way I (we) could compete with them advertising dollar wise

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:34:29pm

re: #1 sattv4u2

, many of them small website owners, because of the new sales tax law just signed by Governor Brown

I read about this earlier today and was going to ask you if/how it affects you

I got a letter from them telling me I was out of the program, but since I never figured out how to actually set the damn thing up, it hardly mattered. To me.

Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:37:34pm

Amazing (not really) how many of the comments on his page missed the point of the letter in order to go off against one side or the other in the Amazon-State of California dispute.

Syrius Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:38:36pm

Thoughts on taxing the internets? As a small business owner with a brick and mortar building, it's about time Amazon started paying taxes. Now they want to take their ball and go home. Why not just adjust and continue?

jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:39:49pm

re: #14 Syrius

Thoughts on taxing the internets? As a small business owner with a brick and mortar building, it's about time Amazon started paying taxes. Now they want to take their ball and go home. Why not just adjust and continue?

Hey, is a man not entitled to the sweat of his electron's brow?

lawhawk Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:41:13pm

re: #9 ralphieboy

More and more states are trying to demand sales tax compliance from online sales, even though courts have found that such affiliate-based transactions aren't sufficient for nexus purposes (there must be sufficient nexus between the retailer and the state in order for the state to impose tax obligations, whether it's reporting or collection). The Direct Marketing Association successfully got a temporary injunction blocking a similar CO law - and that's based on the substantial likelihood that the state would lose on trial.

The CA law isn't much different; it's imposing restrictions on interstate commerce on retailers with whom it doesn't have sufficient nexus.

That isn't to say that CA can't find ways to bring in more sales/use tax revenues from the likes of Amazon. It could provide an incentive for these retailers to collect and remit the tax- namely say that on the CA statewide rate of 7.25% starting July 1, 2011, that these online companies can keep 1%, remitting the other 6.25% to the state. That 1% would be sufficient revenue and compensation for the additional costs for compliance, and the state would generate the revenue it's looking for. Affiliates would be able to keep their relationships as well.

But CA is greedy, and they're not going down that path. Rather, they're trying to get the whole kit-and-caboodle while ignoring current law (Quill) or wishing that courts will make Quill go away (they wont, and haven't to date).

Amazon is also greedy, since it isn't willing to work with those states on a voluntary collection method that not only retains a revenue stream for the company, but fosters goodwill with the affiliates.

Still, on the whole, law on this area (sales tax nexus) favors Amazon and unless the courts or the federal government step in to set up a new taxing methodology, we're going to see a whole lot more of this as states try to get around Quill and look to sales tax collection, ignore use tax as a viable option, and refuse to consider collaborative voluntary collections that would generate revenue for the state, companies like Amazon, and affiliates.

recusancy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:41:50pm

re: #7 mr.fusion

Sounds to me (without knowing much about the situation) like Amazon decided to Go Galt

Yup. They don't want to give up there competitive price advantage that is driving brick and mortar stores out of business and Bezos is using Charles and everybody in CA as pawns in his fight.

Charles Johnson Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:42:15pm

Amazon has a legitimate gripe with CA on this. That new law is VERY counterproductive. But at the same time, it's not fair for Amazon to use their Associates as pawns in the fight - I don't depend on the Associates program for my main income, but I'm sure that there are many who do, and this is a serious blow to them.

Targetpractice Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:46:33pm

re: #16 lawhawk

So really, neither side is in "the right," as Cali is trying to strong-arm Amazon into forking over tax revenue, while Amazon is burning associates in order to continue undercutting brick-and-mortar competition, but Amazon has the advantage of the law being on its side.

No surprises here.

lawhawk Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:48:45pm

re: #13 oaktree

The letter and the timing is due in part to how the law was enacted - and how much lead time was being given.

Also, it isn't just Amazon - it's any out-of-state retailer meeting thresholds; so a brick and mortar company like Cabela's would be subject to the CA sales tax scheme (except they too canceled their affiliate deals in CA).

The CA law imposed the requirements immediately upon the governor's signature. That pretty much means that the moment the ink dried, those out-of-state retailers were subject to the law. Rather than see the law imposed at some date in the future - say 60-90 days or 1st day of the next calendar quarter - CA went and jumped ugly right away.

That means that there was no room to debate or negotiate a better bill or prepare affiliates for a change. These companies had to drop the affiliates or else be forced to assume the costs for compliance.

recusancy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:49:03pm

re: #19 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

So really, neither side is in "the right," as Cali is trying to strong-arm Amazon into forking over tax revenue, while Amazon is burning associates in order to continue undercutting brick-and-mortar competition, but Amazon has the advantage of the law being on its side.

No surprises here.

Here's a good breakdown: [Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

Simply Sarah Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:50:58pm

re: #18 Charles

Amazon has a legitimate gripe with CA on this. That new law is VERY counterproductive. But at the same time, it's not fair for Amazon to use their Associates as pawns in the fight - I don't depend on the Associates program for my main income, but I'm sure that there are many who do, and this is a serious blow to them.

I'll be completely honest here. While Amazon may have valid legal points, I have next to no sympathy for them and similar retailers outside of those grounds. The way things current work with sales taxes basically encourage companies to *not* create jobs inside of states, because doing so would require them to collect the taxes and would, as a result, take away their unfair advantage over local brick and mortar (And locally operated online) retailers.

Has this resulted in hurting Californians? Yes. But the alternative seems like it would have been letting Amazon and others hold them hostage in order to demand special treatment. If sales taxes are *too high*, that's a different issue.

Charles Johnson Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:51:36pm

I suspect Amazon might have a hope that by cutting off this many people they'll cause a popular revolt against the new law and get it repealed, or struck down in court.

One thing Amazon is definitely burning -- a lot of built-up good will among their customers and Associates in California.

lawhawk Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:51:43pm

re: #18 Charles

The gripes are quite real - and costly. CA imposed this bill in a way that was essentially a bolt from the blue - no warning to anyone and no chance to prepare affiliates for drastic changes - such as if the bill was scheduled to take effect 8/1/2011 or 9/1/2011 etc. Still bad for the affiliates in those cases, but you'd have time to prepare alternatives. No such luck here.

Also, this will have an effect on income tax revenues collected by CA as those affiliates lose income generated through these programs. Counterproductive doesn't even begin to describe the situation.

Best bet is to hope that the DMA sues CA to enjoin them from forcing compliance while awaiting trial on the matter (as is the case in CO).

Ben G. Hazi Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:53:19pm

re: #3 jamesfirecat

Sounds like you're up a river... (puts on sun glasses) the Amazon river...

YEEEAAAHHH!

Horatio Caine, is that you?

///

freetoken Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:53:45pm

re: #20 lawhawk

I get the point of why the haste.

However, I don't understand why Amazon just didn't keep the program and collect the taxes. Does the California law make affiliates liable for collection also?

lawhawk Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:54:22pm

re: #23 Charles

They tried doing something similar in NY - and the NY law is being challenged by Amazon, Overstock, and others - on grounds that the law as applied is unconstitutional.

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:54:53pm

re: #26 freetoken

I get the point of why the haste.

However, I don't understand why Amazon just didn't keep the program and collect the taxes. Does the California law make affiliates liable for collection also?

I doubt it, since all processing is done through Amazon not through an individual associate.

Velvet Elvis Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:55:08pm

Is it just me or would it make a whole lot more sense to require e-buisnesses to pay sales tax in the the states where they are incorporated.?

Amazon might be able to do it, but having to keep up with and pay taxes in 50 different states seems like way to big a burden for smaller businesses to bear.

Simply Sarah Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:56:43pm

re: #29 Conservative Moonbat

Is it just me or would it make a whole lot more sense to require e-buisnesses to pay sales tax in the the states where they are incorporated.?

Amazon might be able to do it, but having to keep up with and pay taxes in 50 different states seems like way to big a burden for smaller businesses to bear.

No, that wouldn't work. Then those businesses would just incorporate in a state without a sales tax.

recusancy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:56:56pm

re: #26 freetoken

I get the point of why the haste.

However, I don't understand why Amazon just didn't keep the program and collect the taxes. Does the California law make affiliates liable for collection also?

They're hoping that the loss of revenue that they are suffering from cutting affiliates completely off will be worth it if it riles up populist anti tax fervor among it's constituents.

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:57:31pm

re: #29 Conservative Moonbat

companies that operate in multiple states already have to do that with payroll and state taxes for employees. It seems to me it wouldn't be hard for a company to set up a system for adding in the sales tax of any given state. It's not a hard calculation and should be rather simple to implement.

Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:57:46pm

re: #30 Simply Sarah

No, that wouldn't work. Then those businesses would just incorporate in a state without a sales tax.

Aren't they all already in Delaware anyways?

;)

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:58:28pm

re: #31 recusancy

They're hoping that the loss of revenue that they are suffering from cutting affiliates completely off will be worth it if it riles up populist anti tax fervor among it's constituents.

heh it's making me less likely to support Amazon in this because they are screwing over their affiliates in order to avoid complying with a law (whether people like the law or not).

ElCapitanAmerica Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:58:54pm

re: #18 Charles

Amazon has a legitimate gripe with CA on this. That new law is VERY counterproductive. But at the same time, it's not fair for Amazon to use their Associates as pawns in the fight - I don't depend on the Associates program for my main income, but I'm sure that there are many who do, and this is a serious blow to them.

I'm not sure if they're using you guys as "pawns", I thought they cancelled affiliates in CA so they don't have a physical presence in CA, which kind of makes sense to me.

I understand why people are upset at Amazon, but the originator of this is the state of California, sounds like you should be directing your anger at them. Amazon is just reacting to the realities of what your state representatives are doing against their business model in your name.

Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:59:13pm

re: #32 Dreggas

companies that operate in multiple states already have to do that with payroll and state taxes for employees. It seems to me it wouldn't be hard for a company to set up a system for adding in the sales tax of any given state. It's not a hard calculation and should be rather simple to implement.

Very similar to a lot of mail-order forms that already include the stipulations to include salestax for buyers in states X, Y, and Z where the company has brick-and-mortar operations and the company has to already collect the tax.

recusancy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:59:28pm

re: #34 Dreggas

heh it's making me less likely to support Amazon in this because they are screwing over their affiliates in order to avoid complying with a law (whether people like the law or not).

Yup. I hope this heavy handedness really hurts Amazon. Bezos is already enough of an asshole without this incident.

lawhawk Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:59:45pm

Another thing to consider is that they've got thresholds that are quite low for a business to be subject to CA rules.

Say you want to start up a new online business and you're trying to be the next big Internet conglomerate. You start up in DE and then you decide to sell your product via affiliates, including to CA. This bill would impose a steep burden on new companies that an established company would not have as much trouble overcoming. Amazon's certainly got the deep pockets and legal department to comply, but a new company would need an entire tax department (or farm out that operation to others) to handle tax compliance as this law is currently written.

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:00:45pm

re: #35 ElCapitanAmerica

I understand why people are upset at Amazon, but the originator of this is the state of California, sounds like you should be directing your anger at them. Amazon is just reacting to the realities of what your state representatives are doing against their business model in your name.

Their business model is not to dodge the collection or remittance of sales tax. If they sell in a state they should pay in the state. Now they are just screwing people over because they don't wanna pay.

Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:01:30pm

re: #35 ElCapitanAmerica

I'm not sure if they're using you guys as "pawns", I thought they cancelled affiliates in CA so they don't have a physical presence in CA, which kind of makes sense to me.

I understand why people are upset at Amazon, but the originator of this is the state of California, sounds like you should be directing your anger at them. Amazon is just reacting to the realities of what your state representatives are doing against their business model in your name.

But the California law did not stipulate that Amazon had to throw their affiliates under the bus. "Look at what California made us do!" is not much of a defense.

freetoken Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:01:55pm

re: #31 recusancy

That doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me. If retail has one thing in common across locales it is that shoppers look for the best bargain (occasionally the best service). "Amazon" as a brand is well known but I, as a customer (and a long term one, from near the beginning of their online life) only shop there for price and/or convenience. I'll buy something if it is cheaper at Walmart, etc.

If anything this move does not make me want to rebel against Gov. Brown et. al. but rather just a feel for the associates who depended upon the revenue generated by their websites. As a political-motivation tactic it seems Amazon's move has failed on me.

lawhawk Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:02:25pm

re: #36 oaktree

Yes - that's an actual physical presence, such as a distribution center, warehouse, sales force operation, buildings, property, etc.

recusancy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:02:56pm

re: #41 freetoken

That doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me. If retail has one thing in common across locales it is that shoppers look for the best bargain (occasionally the best service). "Amazon" as a brand is well known but I, as a customer (and a long term one, from near the beginning of their online life) only shop there for price and/or convenience. I'll buy something if it is cheaper at Walmart, etc.

If anything this move does not make me want to rebel against Gov. Brown et. al. but rather just a feel for the associates who depended upon the revenue generated by their websites. As a political-motivation tactic it seems Amazon's move has failed on me.

It'll split along ideological lines. It already has.

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:03:05pm

re: #35 ElCapitanAmerica

I'm not sure if they're using you guys as "pawns", I thought they cancelled affiliates in CA so they don't have a physical presence in CA, which kind of makes sense to me.

I understand why people are upset at Amazon, but the originator of this is the state of California, sounds like you should be directing your anger at them. Amazon is just reacting to the realities of what your state representatives are doing against their business model in your name.

I don't elect my state representative to represent the interests of Amazon's business model.

Big shrug. They have the right to end this program, albeit in sort of a dickish way. But they have a shitload of money and their own lawyers, and I will not go and plead their case to anyone for them.

Simply Sarah Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:03:24pm

re: #35 ElCapitanAmerica

I'm not sure if they're using you guys as "pawns", I thought they cancelled affiliates in CA so they don't have a physical presence in CA, which kind of makes sense to me.

I understand why people are upset at Amazon, but the originator of this is the state of California, sounds like you should be directing your anger at them. Amazon is just reacting to the realities of what your state representatives are doing against their business model in your name.

Again, I disagree. I know what the law is like currently and it certainly appears to be on Amazon's side, but that doesn't, to me, make it the fault of California. I do not see why California should stand by while Amazon and others take jobs and tax revenues out of the state (Any taxes on income generated by affiliates will be far less than what the sales tax would take in) by basically hiding behind the law, which, even if technically correct, is still insane.

recusancy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:03:47pm

re: #44 SanFranciscoZionist

I don't elect my state representative to represent the interests of Amazon's business model.

Big shrug. They have the right to end this program, albeit in sort of a dickish way. But they have a shitload of money and their own lawyers, and I will not go and plead their case to anyone for them.

That's the Tea Party's job. Stick up for corporate America.

Velvet Elvis Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:03:53pm

re: #32 Dreggas

companies that operate in multiple states already have to do that with payroll and state taxes for employees. It seems to me it wouldn't be hard for a company to set up a system for adding in the sales tax of any given state. It's not a hard calculation and should be rather simple to implement.

A lot of e-commerce sites are small business too though. Keeping up with this would likely require at least one more full time employee and if it's a business with only 3-4 employees to begin with, that might be too much to stomach.

Charles Johnson Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:05:29pm

Whether or not you think this is a justified action for Amazon to take, from a public relations standpoint it's going to be really bad for them. It's never a good idea for a company to just burn its best promoters/customers like this.

recusancy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:05:50pm

re: #47 Conservative Moonbat

A lot of e-commerce sites are small business too though. Keeping up with this would likely require at least one more full time employee and if it's a business with only 3-4 employees to begin with, that might be too much to stomach.

No. You go into your ecommerce platform and add a sales tax percentage to buyers from that state. It takes 2 minutes. Not an extra employee.

lawhawk Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:06:21pm

Actually, if there's one person that can be blamed, it's Walter Hellerstein, who has pushed for Quill to be overturned, and for the expansion of nexus to encompass pretty much every contact between a state and a retailer.

Simply Sarah Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:06:41pm

re: #47 Conservative Moonbat

A lot of e-commerce sites are small business too though. Keeping up with this would likely require at least one more full time employee and if it's a business with only 3-4 employees to begin with, that might be too much to stomach.

See, I don't buy this. A very large amount of this could be handled very easily by simple software.

allegro Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:07:09pm

I'm still not clear on how/why the affiliates have anything to do with the taxation thing. Affiliates are simply referring business aren't they? They are not representatives or employees of the company. How does the physical location of someone with a website that talks up a book and places a link to Amazon have anything to do with this sales tax issue?

SidewaysQuark Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:07:16pm

re: #14 Syrius

Thoughts on taxing the internets? As a small business owner with a brick and mortar building, it's about time Amazon started paying taxes. Now they want to take their ball and go home. Why not just adjust and continue?

Well, you can't blame a business for doing what's best for revenue. That's the job of a business. Why can't California adjust their law in negotiation with them?

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:07:55pm

re: #47 Conservative Moonbat

A lot of e-commerce sites are small business too though. Keeping up with this would likely require at least one more full time employee and if it's a business with only 3-4 employees to begin with, that might be too much to stomach.

most of these small business owners process their sales through credit card collection services. Those services are larger and could easily add in the ability to collect sales tax. Those that use Pay-pal to collect their money may be in a bit of a pickle but even there paypal could offer the collections etc.

recusancy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:08:09pm

re: #53 SidewaysQuark

Well, you can't blame a business for doing what's best for revenue. That's the job of a business. Why can't California adjust their law in negotiation with them?

They will lose revenue buy stopping their affiliate program.

ElCapitanAmerica Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:08:13pm

re: #46 recusancy

That's the Tea Party's job. Stick up for corporate America.

I don't elect my representatives to uphold the rights of Walmart or other companies either, but if you are an affiliate, by definition your interests are tied to that company.

BTW, I think people are overestimating the potential negative impact this could have on Amazon, I'll sum it up for you it will be zero. People shop at Amazon for 2 reasons; convenience and price. And in most cases, price trumps everything else.

When your 2K LED 3D TV is slightly cheaper than the local retailer and doesn't include taxes and comes with free shipping, most people will go with lower price rather than protests against an affiliate program most consumers are likely not aware of.

freetoken Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:08:17pm

re: #48 Charles

Yeah, I guess that is my point. As a customer I don't really care to be a pawn in a political battle. I just want good service and low prices.

If anything, this whole issue just illustrates how lethargic Congress is when it comes to tackling contemporary issues. The internet has taken interstate commerce to a whole new level and our laws, our tax laws, have yet to catch up.

Velvet Elvis Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:08:25pm

re: #49 recusancy

No. You go into your ecommerce platform and add a sales tax percentage to buyers from that state. It takes 2 minutes. Not an extra employee.

You're leaving out the step where the taxes collected have to be paid out to each of the 50 states.

jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:09:34pm

re: #53 SidewaysQuark

Well, you can't blame a business for doing what's best for revenue. That's the job of a business. Why can't California adjust their law in negotiation with them?

Yeah, but won't Amazon loose more money in the long run by making it so their afiliates are likely to cut them off since they will no longer be getting anything for continuing to link to Amazon.

It seems to me that they're opting for a bigger piece of a smaller pie... which is the exact opposite of what is best for revenue....

allegro Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:09:51pm

re: #51 Simply Sarah

See, I don't buy this. A very large amount of this could be handled very easily by simple software.

Actually I do buy this. It isn't simply adding a line to the order form. It's having to keep accounting for every different state, file all of the forms quarterly and pay those sales taxes. It's a pain to do for one state. But for 50? Holy moly.... $1.24 to SC, $4.73 to Fla, $2,87 to NY... nightmare.

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:10:03pm

re: #46 recusancy

That's the Tea Party's job. Stick up for corporate America.

If they want to take it on, fine.

Velvet Elvis Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:10:19pm

re: #52 allegro

I'm still not clear on how/why the affiliates have anything to do with the taxation thing. Affiliates are simply referring business aren't they? They are not representatives or employees of the company. How does the physical location of someone with a website that talks up a book and places a link to Amazon have anything to do with this sales tax issue?

My guess is that since affiliates get 6% off the top of each sale, cutting the affiliate program returns the 6% that now has to be paid out in taxes.

Or it could just be blackmail.

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:10:29pm

re: #60 allegro

Actually I do buy this. It isn't simply adding a line to the order form. It's having to keep accounting for every different state, file all of the forms quarterly and pay those sales taxes. It's a pain to do for one state. But for 50? Holy moly... $1.24 to SC, $4.73 to Fla, $2,87 to NY... nightmare.

they make software that handles this.

Charles Johnson Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:10:33pm

re: #56 ElCapitanAmerica

You're missing the point. Amazon is going to have to start charging sales tax to CA residents, whether they cancel the associate program or not. They're canceling the program because it wipes out the margin that used to be paid to associates - or that's the excuse anyway.

recusancy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:10:33pm

re: #58 Conservative Moonbat

You're leaving out the step where the taxes collected have to be paid out to each of the 50 states.

It's electronic. That takes another 10 minutes. If you actually still snail mail your taxes then it'll take an extra envelope. It's not over burdensome.

Velvet Elvis Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:11:18pm

re: #60 allegro

Actually I do buy this. It isn't simply adding a line to the order form. It's having to keep accounting for every different state, file all of the forms quarterly and pay those sales taxes. It's a pain to do for one state. But for 50? Holy moly... $1.24 to SC, $4.73 to Fla, $2,87 to NY... nightmare.

exactly

Simply Sarah Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:11:24pm

re: #60 allegro

Actually I do buy this. It isn't simply adding a line to the order form. It's having to keep accounting for every different state, file all of the forms quarterly and pay those sales taxes. It's a pain to do for one state. But for 50? Holy moly... $1.24 to SC, $4.73 to Fla, $2,87 to NY... nightmare.

The filing process can be simplified. That doesn't seem to be what is being really argued. I never hear "We can't collect sales taxes until you make it easier to handle it!" It seems to always be "We can't collect sales taxes ever! OMG that's impossible!"

recusancy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:11:37pm

re: #63 Dreggas

they make software that handles this.

It's like we're still living in the 50's with some people.

Darth Vader Gargoyle Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:12:22pm

Gaza flotilla sabotaged, organizer says

Whoopsie!

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:12:45pm

re: #64 Charles

Yeah that's what I don't get, regardless they need to charge sales tax to CA residents, why the hell eliminate the associates in the state? Because now they have to pay to setup handling adding on the sales tax? Like Amazon can't afford that.

Velvet Elvis Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:13:26pm

re: #65 recusancy

It's electronic. That takes another 10 minutes. If you actually still snail mail your taxes then it'll take an extra envelope. It's not over burdensome.

There's also the step where every transaction has to be documented in case you're audited. You also have to know 50 different sets of tax laws, etc.

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:14:19pm

re: #53 SidewaysQuark

Well, you can't blame a business for doing what's best for revenue. That's the job of a business. Why can't California adjust their law in negotiation with them?

They may. I, OTOH, am not going to reward Amazon for this tacky plea for public sympathy by going back to shilling for them when this is over.

It's a business's job to make money, but that's their problem, not everyone else's. I have no problem with large businesses negotiating for a better deal, but the idea that everyone else ought to just give in to them is silly.

Velvet Elvis Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:14:39pm

re: #68 recusancy

It's like we're still living in the 50's with some people.

I've developed plenty of eCommerce sites. It's just not as simple as you claim.

Targetpractice Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:15:07pm

re: #70 Dreggas

Yeah that's what I don't get, regardless they need to charge sales tax to CA residents, why the hell eliminate the associates in the state? Because now they have to pay to setup handling adding on the sales tax? Like Amazon can't afford that.

It's a calculated measure, which they hope will lead the affiliates burned by this to blame Brown and the California legislature for passing this law and "forcing" Amazon to burn their own associates.

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:15:19pm

re: #64 Charles

You're missing the point. Amazon is going to have to start charging sales tax to CA residents, whether they cancel the associate program or not. They're canceling the program because it wipes out the margin that used to be paid to associates - or that's the excuse anyway.

Because Amazon is simply hemorrhaging money?

recusancy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:16:12pm

re: #71 Conservative Moonbat

There's also the step where every transaction has to be documented in case you're audited. You also have to know 50 different sets of tax laws, etc.

You keep trying and trying. Every case has to be documented anyways for cc fraud and other accounting issues. It's not a complicated tax law. You add a certain percent on to the order for a particular state. It's basic math. It's already built into every ecommerce platform.

If you don't like sales tax fine. But this argument has no legs.

recusancy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:16:30pm

re: #73 Conservative Moonbat

I've developed plenty of eCommerce sites. It's just not as simple as you claim.

As have I.

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:16:37pm

re: #73 Conservative Moonbat

I've developed plenty of eCommerce sites. It's just not as simple as you claim.

It may be complicated, but Amazon is a fairly large company. It's not like Mom and Pop Jackson are trying to do this for their little corner shop.

allegro Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:16:44pm

re: #68 recusancy

It's like we're still living in the 50's with some people.

It's like a lot of people here have never owned a business or dealt with sales tax.

elizajane Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:17:08pm

re: #53 SidewaysQuark

Well, you can't blame a business for doing what's best for revenue. That's the job of a business. Why can't California adjust their law in negotiation with them?

You can't blame the state legislature for trying to do what's best for the state's inhabitants, either.

Amazon offers these great competitive prices that we think benefit us as consumers. But it does so in part because of a whopping great skewing of the tax code that means that those of us in states with sales tax are not receiving the benefits (schools, roads, etc) that would be paid for if we could collect those taxes. So it's not as pretty a picture as the consumer imagines.

Amazon's low prices happen because it has preferential tax treatment, and it's throwing a fit because it wants to keep it that way. But its corporate perks are not without cost to buyers, those costs are just very hidden and indirect.

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:17:11pm

Sales tax software and solutions:

[Link: www.vertexinc.com...]

[Link: www.taxsites.com...]

[Link: www.domsys.net...]

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:17:18pm

re: #79 allegro

It's like a lot of people here have never owned a business or dealt with sales tax.

I never have, but I've observed that many, many companies appear to be able to do it.

Simply Sarah Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:17:23pm

re: #64 Charles

You're missing the point. Amazon is going to have to start charging sales tax to CA residents, whether they cancel the associate program or not. They're canceling the program because it wipes out the margin that used to be paid to associates - or that's the excuse anyway.

Actually, wait. That doesn't make sense. Their margin wouldn't change if they started collecting sales tax, since that's on top of the normal sale price. This would only *increase* their margin on things.

recusancy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:17:34pm

re: #73 Conservative Moonbat

I've developed plenty of eCommerce sites. It's just not as simple as you claim.

What complications have you run across? Have an anecdote?

Velvet Elvis Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:18:18pm

re: #78 SanFranciscoZionist

It may be complicated, but Amazon is a fairly large company. It's not like Mom and Pop Jackson are trying to do this for their little corner shop.

But there are plenty of "mom and pop" eCommerce sites that would struggle under the burden of having to pay out taxes to 50 different states.

lawhawk Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:18:20pm

re: #65 recusancy

Yes, there are databases that you can subscribe to that provide tax rate information and software that you can purchase that handles these transactions, but they increase the cost of doing business for the out of state retailer.

States that are members of the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement are able to use standardized terms to help simplify tax collection and compliance. CA isn't a member. Rates are the big problem - especially for those states/localities that don't publish such information in a regular schedule/format.

But it all still boils down to Quill. That, above all else, is what governs this area of law.

danarchy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:19:47pm

re: #64 Charles

You're missing the point. Amazon is going to have to start charging sales tax to CA residents, whether they cancel the associate program or not. They're canceling the program because it wipes out the margin that used to be paid to associates - or that's the excuse anyway.

Are you sure this is the case? I thought the point of terminating the associate program was so that they would get rid of their "physical presence" in the state and therefore not have to comply with the tax collections. To my knowledge Amazon has pretty much said they will not collect the taxes.

freetoken Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:23:13pm

Here's the nexus of the issue:

Brown signs rare on-time California budget

States are desperate to raise funds. Here in CA our past decisions have painted us into a political corner (actually many) - it takes a full 2/3rds of the legislature to raise any taxes - that makes it nearly impossible. (And the discretionary budget is being cut.)

However, by applying a bit of legal-jujitsu there is always a possibility of opening up new streams of revenue by redefining objects, etc. Which is what has happened in the case of online sales and companies like Amazon.

I think it is time for the Congress to take up the issue of a national interstate commerce retail tax. For too long Congress has tried to pretend it could just wish away this issue, somehow.

Velvet Elvis Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:24:01pm

re: #84 recusancy

What complications have you run across? Have an anecdote?

It's manageable now, but if all 50 states do this it's going to greatly increase the workload for site owners.

I've built eCommerce sites for a lot of mom and pop brick and mortar businesses who just wanted to see how they could do with online sales. They employee no extra staff to handle the online side of the business. Having to pay taxes to all 50 states would cause a lot of them to drop the web side of their businesses entirely.

Velvet Elvis Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:25:14pm

re: #87 danarchy

Are you sure this is the case? I thought the point of terminating the associate program was so that they would get rid of their "physical presence" in the state and therefore not have to comply with the tax collections. To my knowledge Amazon has pretty much said they will not collect the taxes.

If this is the case it makes Amazons a special case and I'm less worried about the prospects for smaller sites.

recusancy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:26:51pm

re: #89 Conservative Moonbat

It's manageable now, but if all 50 states do this it's going to greatly increase the workload for site owners.

I've built eCommerce sites for a lot of mom and pop brick and mortar businesses who just wanted to see how they could do with online sales. They employee no extra staff to handle the online side of the business. Having to pay taxes to all 50 states would cause a lot of them to drop the web side of their businesses entirely.

So, you haven't run across any problems. If they employ no extra staff for the online side they'll have more issues if they actually get orders then worrying about taxes.

Your last sentence is just bs. If they drop it because of that they were never serious to begin with.

Velvet Elvis Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:26:52pm

re: #88 freetoken

I think it is time for the Congress to take up the issue of a national interstate commerce retail tax. For too long Congress has tried to pretend it could just wish away this issue, somehow.

Agreed. All other ways lie madness.

harrylook Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:27:36pm

I'm in favor of capturing sales tax from on-line purchasing. It's a fair way to handle some of the states' budget problems.

As for Amazon, did they breach their contract? What did the termination clause say?

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:29:04pm

re: #69 rwdflynavy

OT

Gaza flotilla sabotaged, organizer says

Whoopsie!

I find it interesting that they're describing the damage as 'terror'.

I think the technical term is 'sabotage'.

lawhawk Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:29:34pm

re: #88 freetoken

Or as one of my coworkers has said - impose a federal sales tax on Internet transactions, and use the revenues to pay for health care. Or roads. Dedicated funding source.

Such a law would preempt the states, get rid of Quill's nexus for state tax purposes, and would result in significant revenues to the government. It would also allow a national standard on sales tax easing the administrative burden to businesses online.

Simply Sarah Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:30:11pm

re: #89 Conservative Moonbat

It's manageable now, but if all 50 states do this it's going to greatly increase the workload for site owners.

I've built eCommerce sites for a lot of mom and pop brick and mortar businesses who just wanted to see how they could do with online sales. They employee no extra staff to handle the online side of the business. Having to pay taxes to all 50 states would cause a lot of them to drop the web side of their businesses entirely.

My main issue is that Amazon's response isn't "OK, let's work on a solution to make this work" (Which would be nonsense anyway, since Amazon basically already makes it work in other aspects of its business). There are workable solutions to this, ones without legal issues, even. But Amazon doesn't actually seem interested in that. They seem to just want to be able to avoid charging sales taxes.

allegro Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:30:16pm

re: #91 recusancy

So, you haven't run across any problems. If they employ no extra staff for the online side they'll have more issues if they actually get orders then worrying about taxes.

Your last sentence is just bs. If they drop it because of that they were never serious to begin with.

Curious, have you ever dealt with collecting, reporting, and paying sales tax?

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:30:30pm

re: #93 harrylook

I'm in favor of capturing sales tax from on-line purchasing. It's a fair way to handle some of the states' budget problems.

As for Amazon, did they breach their contract? What did the termination clause say?

I think they always kept all control over the relationship. I doubt there's any sort of contract breach, as long as they pay everyone's last check.

lawhawk Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:30:53pm

re: #94 SanFranciscoZionist

Or neglect, because those items could have been in a state of poor repair prior to setting sale and upon closer examination by the divers.

100

harrylook Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:31:14pm

re: #98 SanFranciscoZionist

In that case, I can't really get upset at Amazon.

101

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:32:05pm

re: #99 lawhawk

Or neglect, because those items could have been in a state of poor repair prior to setting sale and upon closer examination by the divers.

I've said a number of times, neither Israel's involvement, nor the idea that the boats are just clunkers and the flotillaniks overreacting, seems unlikely.

102

Bulworth Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:32:33pm

From a consumer point of view, the author makes a good point about Amazon.com being able to use the convience of brick-n-mortar stores having books (or other things) available for people to check out before going to amazon.com to actually buy the product and avoid the sales tax.

103

recusancy Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:32:40pm

re: #97 allegro

Curious, have you ever dealt with collecting, reporting, and paying sales tax?

Yes.

104

Simply Sarah Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:32:47pm

re: #100 harrylook

In that case, I can't really get upset at Amazon.

Look, just because a contract allows you do to something doesn't mean that taking that action is morally right or fair or anything, especially since contracts of these types tend to be comically weighted in favor of the corporation to an almost scandalous degree.

105

harrylook Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:34:34pm

re: #30 Simply Sarah

No, that wouldn't work. Then those businesses would just incorporate in a state without a sales tax.

True, but you know what is funny with sales tax? I bought a car in NH a couple years ago, where there is no sales tax. When I registered the car in Mass., they charged me the Mass. 5% sales tax. Almost funny, I guess....

106

SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:35:11pm

re: #100 harrylook

In that case, I can't really get upset at Amazon.

I'm not upset, but I didn't rely on this for income. I think their behavior is whiny, and self-dramatizing. No skin off my nose, but I'm unimpressed with how they handled this.

107

harrylook Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:36:30pm

re: #106 SanFranciscoZionist

I guess. Maybe it's a temper tantrum. Or maybe it's just a business decision. They didn't violate anyone's rights. I'll probably still buy stuff from them, though I preferred to do it in a way that supported a good blog like LGF.

108

lawhawk Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:37:54pm

re: #102 Bulworth

In which case the purchaser would be required to pay use tax.

Most states that have a sales tax also have a use tax - for instances where sales tax would otherwise be required, but wasn't collected and remitted by the seller. It is on the purchaser to remit the use tax to the state (often at the same time as the income tax return).

If purchasers remitted the use tax, the states would have a source of revenue that was wholly legal, but most people simply don't do that - and the states consider this situation ripe to be fixed in some fashion.

They've taken this tact - going after Amazon to collect and remit sales tax as a remote seller, even though they could work on better compliance for use tax.

109

Simply Sarah Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:38:15pm

re: #105 harrylook

True, but you know what is funny with sales tax? I bought a car in NH a couple years ago, where there is no sales tax. When I registered the car in Mass., they charged me the Mass. 5% sales tax. Almost funny, I guess...

Yes. That's not uncommon for large purchases. It's specifically to try and prevent that sort of thing being done to avoid paying taxes. You might remember when Kerry was under the microscope over his yacht last year on basically that very issue.

110

harrylook Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:38:47pm

re: #109 Simply Sarah

hahaha. oh, yeah. he ended up paying.

111

freetoken Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:38:51pm

re: #95 lawhawk

This is what I know:

1. I pay over 10% sales tax locally (except on food.)

2. The state in which I live chose years ago to not raise money principally through real estate taxes or by fees/tolls, but rather by personal income and sales taxes.

3. Since it now takes a super majority in this state to raise taxes, a political minority can hold the majority hostage on just about any issue related to money.

4. Government services are beginning to suffer because funding is not keeping up with population growth and overall activity and desired outcome (e.g. well kept roads.)

So, given all of that, Amazon or whoever doesn't really impress me with their stunts. I understand their position, but they are just whistling in the wind as far as I am concerned.

112

Charles Johnson Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:40:36pm

re: #87 danarchy

Are you sure this is the case? I thought the point of terminating the associate program was so that they would get rid of their "physical presence" in the state and therefore not have to comply with the tax collections. To my knowledge Amazon has pretty much said they will not collect the taxes.

You're absolutely right - I stated that wrongly. They're doing it to avoid paying sales tax on the Associate referrals, according to the latest article I just found.

113

Simply Sarah Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:42:58pm

re: #108 lawhawk

Let's be realistic, though. Even ignoring the fact that it's very easy for people to avoid paying use taxes (And trying to enforce them seriously would probably cost more than what they would bring in), many people who might honestly pay will be prone to simply losing track or forgetting. I'm not sure why it's OK to burden state citizens with keeping a record of every online purchase they make and then totaling it at the end of the year, while asking a centralized retailer to do so is unfair.

114

lawhawk Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:45:20pm

re: #113 Simply Sarah

For one thing, it's the way that the state laws are written (imposing use tax requirements); and Quill governs interstate commerce and would ban these taxing requirements on remote sellers.

Until both are revised to reflect the outcome you seek, this is the situation we have to deal with.

115

Charles Johnson Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:46:20pm

re: #113 Simply Sarah

The real problem is that the CA law is an end run around the Supreme Court's "Quill v. N. Dakota" case. It could be struck down for that reason, but it will have to go through months of challenges - too late to save many small web businesses.

116

Bob Dillon Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:46:58pm

Attorneys call the shots now. From war to business decisions. And the majority of legislators are attorneys as well. It is wise to have multiple income streams.

117

Simply Sarah Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:47:16pm

re: #114 lawhawk

Yes, yes. I just think that the federal government needs to get off of its ass and do something on this, since it's not going to go away and it's not a small issue. Of course, I'm not sure how much hope I have, since the term "tax" is basically radioactive in Washington right now unless it is followed by "cut".

118

freetoken Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:47:38pm

re: #108 lawhawk

They've taken this tact - going after Amazon to collect and remit sales tax as a remote seller, even though they could work on better compliance for use tax.

Or, the US could just get into the 21st century and accept that interstate commerce is now the norm for individuals and pass a national sales tax on interstate commerce.

In Japan I paid 5% sales tax. Didn't matter where or from whom - every retail outlet. (Japan also has personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, and even some tolls/user fees.)

Like with so many issues, political forces in Congress want to keep the nation as a whole in the 19th century.

119

freetoken Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:52:40pm

In other news... the big paleontological news of the day:

Scientists discover colours of 120-million-year-old bird

The colours of a bird that lived 120 million years ago have been revealed from trace remains of pigments on its fossil, and the same technique may be used to reveal the colours of dinosaurs.
The research, published Thursday online in Science Express suggests that Confuciusornis sanctus, the earliest beaked bird ever discovered, had darker areas on its downy body feathers and its long tail feathers.

It is the first chemical evidence of animal pigments in the fossil record, said Phil Manning, a paleontologist at the University of Manchester and a co-author of the study, in a video interview with Science.

"And these pigments are over 120 million years old."

[...]

Will be coming to a National Geographic channel documentary soon:

[Link: www.prnewswire.com...]

See also the press releases by various involved parties:
[Link: www.eurekalert.org...]
[Link: www.eurekalert.org...]
[Link: www.eurekalert.org...]

The scientific paper:

[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

120

Simply Sarah Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:53:17pm

re: #115 Charles

The real problem is that the CA law is an end run around the Supreme Court's "Quill v. N. Dakota" case. It could be struck down for that reason, but it will have to go through months of challenges - too late to save many small web businesses.

Oh, I know. And I'm a bit surprised that this went into effect immediately (*That* part doesn't seem reasonable at all). That being said, I probably place the most fault at Congress on letting thing reach this point. California is trying to deal with a pretty much unworkable budget situation, so I'm not surprised they're taken some wacky actions (Probably in the hope of taking in more than they may have to pay out defending the law).

121

Three Chord Monty Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:56:53pm

re: #91 recusancy

So, you haven't run across any problems. If they employ no extra staff for the online side they'll have more issues if they actually get orders then worrying about taxes.

Your last sentence is just bs. If they drop it because of that they were never serious to begin with.

I've been selling on Amazon for years. Small-time. Couple hundred sales a year. eBay, too.

I have to collect and remit sales tax in my state. I don't mind, but I have to spend more time on that than I do on any other bookkeeping. Lots of single-penny amounts, all to send a check at the end of the year for $100 or thereabouts.

I pay taxes based on every transaction, no matter how small. I enjoy doing this even though I net less than $1,000 in a year. If you want to argue that it should be the responsibility of Amazon or eBay to take the responsibility of collecting and remitting out of my hands, fine. However, it's not a service that's offered--and if it is, I would guess that would mean a fee increase...which would not be popular, so I don't expect them to.

But if they don't, then I'm faced with, yes, having to make out dozens of checks if every state does as CA has done. I'm not sure how much I'm expected to have to spend in order to remain in compliance with laws like this. I took a look at the Vertex site but I can't find a price.

I disagree with your assessment that I would pack in something I've been doing for more than a decade for a very small profit makes me not serious. Yes, I realize you're probably not referring to people like me. But, still. This is the only way I can run a business the way I choose, and my perfect feedback is as much a reward as the small profit. But there's only so much I should have to do to keep doing this. Rest assured, I would not spend the time; would I spend the money?

How much do you think I should have to spend?

Sorry, I don't consider this fair. It doesn't affect me today. Hopefully it won't.

122

Subhuman Varmintghazi Thu, Jun 30, 2011 2:01:08pm

re: #119 freetoken

There you "scientists" go again with the dinosaur lies. And learn to spell "color," too.

123

Eventual Carrion Thu, Jun 30, 2011 2:02:26pm

re: #97 allegro

Curious, have you ever dealt with collecting, reporting, and paying sales tax?

That's simple. Try road taxes for trucking. Laden/unladen, toll/public, hazardous/normal freight, USA/Canada/Mexico, the list goes on and on. I have written these and more, and yes sales tax rates seems pretty simple to me.

124

freetoken Thu, Jun 30, 2011 2:03:29pm

re: #122 Kid A

Heh, speaking of creationism, well known paleontologist Don Prothero digs into the Mokele myth:

A LIVING DINOSAUR IN THE CONGO? (PART 2)

125

Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears Thu, Jun 30, 2011 2:03:35pm

Besides, we know all dinosaurs were black and white since color didn't start until the 50s...

126

Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears Thu, Jun 30, 2011 2:05:46pm

re: #124 freetoken

Heh, speaking of creationism, well known paleontologist Don Prothero digs into the Mokele myth:

A LIVING DINOSAUR IN THE CONGO? (PART 2)

He only has to look as far as McDonald's. The Dinosaur McNuggets are misnamed...

127

Daniel Ballard Thu, Jun 30, 2011 2:11:24pm

re: #48 Charles

Whether or not you think this is a justified action for Amazon to take, from a public relations standpoint it's going to be really bad for them. It's never a good idea for a company to just burn its best promoters/customers like this.

Classic Ready Fire Aim moment.

128

Eclectic Infidel Thu, Jun 30, 2011 4:43:43pm

re: #69 rwdflynavy

OT

Gaza flotilla sabotaged, organizer says

Whoopsie!

I blame Israel
///

129

Ming Thu, Jun 30, 2011 5:03:45pm

I'm not familiar with Amazon's affiliates program. But if I may give a contrarian viewpoint, I'm no fan of high taxes, but I've generally been in favor of sales taxes to raise revenue. Everyone cheats on their income taxes, in one way or another. But sales taxes are flat. When you buy gasoline, you pay the gas tax, and that's that. You don't give your gas receipt to your tax preparer.

So I generally prefer sales tax, value-added tax, flat taxes, as opposed to progressive income taxes. (A flat tax on income, with no loopholes / deductions, would be fine with me as well.) So I think there's a point to the argument that Amazon.com should collect sales taxes. It seems silly that a WalMart store collects sales taxes, and Amazon.com doesn't.

Back in the mid-1990's, making the Internet a tax-free zone was a wonderful idea. It may have really helped get the Internet going and thriving. Nowadays, this idea may have outlived its usefulness.

130

Obdicut Thu, Jun 30, 2011 5:07:15pm

re: #129 Ming

Why do you prefer regressive taxation?

131

Buck Thu, Jun 30, 2011 5:39:41pm

re: #94 SanFranciscoZionist

I find it interesting that they're describing the damage as 'terror'.

I think the technical term is 'sabotage'.

I think the owner understood what his responsibilities would be under maritime law. I think he is manufacturing an excuse not to go.

It makes no sense for Israel to sabotage one ship. There is no gain.

132

Mark Winter Thu, Jun 30, 2011 8:26:24pm

Amazon has no problem at all collecting mandatory VAT in Europe (which differs from country to country).

So when I order English books at their UK Website (and not at the German website), they will slap on 7% of VAT automatically (7% for delivering to Germany, in The UK books are VAT free).

I don't understand why they want to screw their Californian affiliates over this issue. Bad move.

Too bad, I liked ordering with them. But I don't like this attitude.

133

Dancing along the light of day Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:30:50pm

I really like the last paragraph in your link
While I don’t know the legalities, I do know that affiliates in California are clearly being used by Amazon in a fight it has with their own state. I think Amazon can fight that fight without penalizing them. And it should.

134

Gretchen G.Tiger Fri, Jul 1, 2011 5:51:32am

They did the same thing in Illinois, I think I posted a page about it.

Stupid, IMHO. The Illinois law specificially stated that it only applied if the business had a "brick and mortar" presence in the state.

135

Annar Fri, Jul 1, 2011 8:11:13am

The sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation that exists and I always find it interesting that the 'progressive' states have the highest rates of such usury. If California, Illinois and others want to pursue this they'll need either a federal law or a supreme court decision.

136

Ming Fri, Jul 1, 2011 8:59:35am

re: #130 Obdicut

I'm not sure "regressive" is the word for what I prefer. I generally prefer flat, uniform (same for everyone), SIMPLE taxation. My reason is that in reality, with our current "progressive" taxes, the rich pay LESS than ordinary folks like me. The problem isn't only progressive tax rates; even worse, I think, is the sheer complexity of the tax code. I've had my taxes done by the same tax firm for over 30 years. I would PREFER simplicity, like sales taxes, the gasoline tax, even the Social Security and Medicare taxes. You just pay those simple, flat taxes. The rich don't hire a tax firm to whittle down what they pay on the sales tax. If the sales tax were as complex as our income taxes, I suspect that (just as with income taxes) the rich would pay LESS in sales taxes.

I should mention that I'm totally in favor of President Obama's desire to have current income taxes on the rich go up. I think in these economic times, that is a very good idea. So I'm not a "purist" about hating progressive taxes. But I think the current complex, progressive tax system is just a big giveaway to tax preparers and the rich / upper middle class.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Open Letter to Jeff Bezos on Terminating CA Amazon Associates

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud