Slashdot Mirror
Rhode Island Affiliates Banned From Amazon.com Sales
Rand Huck writes "Amazon.com has now added Rhode Island to its blacklist of affiliates in response to its proposed budget changes to enforce a tax on Internet sales, which includes commissions on their affiliate program by content providers based in Rhode Island. The first state to be blacklisted was North Carolina, for the same reason. If you go to a Rhode Island-based or North Carolina-based website that advertises Amazon.com goods as an affiliate, that website will no longer have the goods available because otherwise Amazon.com would be forced to pay sales tax to the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations or the State of North Carolina. The state's rationale is, if someone clicks to buy a good from Amazon.com via a site based in Rhode Island, it's equivalent to buying a good from a brick and mortar chain store located in Rhode Island."
...the only Amazon.com affiliates left will be in The Amazon.
These are not the only states to impose this type of tax. NY requires collection of sales tax, but Amazon isn't shutting out those affiliates. If they want to make a stand, they should at least be consistent about it.
This is difficult, because an internet retailer is a lot like a catalog retailer, who might have 80% of their business out of state and isn't set up to take 50 states' differing tax rates and does not have the accounting muscle to pay 50 different state taxes each quarter. I think that's the main problem. And then you have the issue of ship to in one state (NC for example) and bill to (non-taxable like Oregon) etc etc. It creates a lot of headaches. Catalogs typically only pay/charge sales taxes for the state their accounting division is in. Multiply this by millions and millions of customers and you can see why Amazon would oppose this merely on the accounting issue. Most accounting software simply isn't set up for taxation in all 50 states, especially automatically.
moox. for a new generation.
Why would I or Amazon have to pay taxes twice or more for something? First Amazon would need to pay taxes at whatever locale they're at, then I would need to pay taxes on the same product in my home state, then also every state it goes through as it is getting shipped from Florida to Rhode Island?
There is a reason intra-state purchases are not taxed. Read the constitution or so, you know the part where it says: The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I can't speak for anyone else, but providing yet another source of revenue for government is the last thing I want. The US government already spends more than any other government in the world, and (surprise) the result isn't even close to ideal.
No, what the US government needs is less spending -- or even a change in where the money goes -- certainly not more revenue.
Amazon is taxed. They aren't getting a free ride. Everyone is already required to pay a sales tax on the items they buy out of state anyway. In your state tax filing it is usually listed under Use tax.
So amazon isn't going to pay any more in tax, the people that are evading taxes would be paying for the tax.
I doubt its amazon links you see spammed, they're pretty strict about bad practices. If you see such for amazon links, you can report it and they will look into it (and disable the affiliates account without payment if he has violated terms of services)
The ones you see spammed are usually something shitty like "get 1000's of your friends click this link and earn $0.001 per click!"
I'm sure the gasoline and other annual taxes to deliver the products to the customer cover the wear and tear on the roads.
Amazon is not using sewer, electrical, police or road services locally as brick and morter store would.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
How are they not taxed like everybody else? As with catalog ordering, they aren't responsible for state sales tax.
They pay corporate taxes, no free ride there.
Am I missing something?
Awesome!
Do you know how much superhighways take to maintain? The Internet is the information superhighway, so the taxes go to pay for travel on it. When you drive to Amazon, you're putting wear on the superhighways of the state Amazon is based in, and then Amazon has to drive your order to the affiliate, which puts wear on the superhighways to the affiliate's state. That's a lot of virtual wear!
I run a brick and mortar store AND an online store. No more than 5 minutes ago I was talking to a customer in the store, and she was asking what the sales tax was to see if she could buy the product cheaper online. That's ridiculous. People are short sighted and selfish. If this continues, we will have very little retail anywhere in the country in a few years, because everybody will be trying to avoid the sales tax. The gov't needs to close this huge loophole. Amazon needs to compete on a level playing field with other retailers. I know that I'd much rather add a bit of code to my web site to collect sales tax correctly all over the country than to have people avoid my brick and mortar store to try to shave a few pennies off elsewhere. I support online retailers having to collect sales tax.
They DO get taxed, their company HQ has a physical location and they MUST pay business taxes. Boeing and Nvidia pay LESS taxes than Amazon.com does.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
I'm in Massachusetts. If I happen to visit the website of the Trinity Repertory Theater (www.trinityrep.com), a theater located in Providence, RI, then my internet traffic doesn't even pass through Rhode Island, much less end in Rhode Island. Their website is hosted by a low-cost provider out in California. The only tie to Rhode Island is that the website was created by an organization in Rhode Island. If I visit that website I don't "visit" Rhode Island. So why should Rhode Island have ANY claim on anything I might purchase from an affiliate program hosted on that site? I'm visiting a website hosted in California and if they were an Amazon affiliate then that would involve a company located in Washington. RI doesn't have any valid claim to tax such a transaction.
By their own logic, I'm buying goods from a brick & mortar store in California (or more appropriately Seattle), NOT Rhode Island. If anything, the company in RI is simply acting as an advertising agency. They designed an advertisement (the website) that's on display in California for a company that actually does business in Washington.
A much better solution then, would be to end the sales tax in the various states to promote more competition with the internet retailers. I realize that taxes are a necessary evil, but let us not spread that evil any further that it has already gone. Every time the government sucks a penny out of the economy we are all the worse for it.
The local state has the right to tax their residents out-of-state purchases. When you buy something in another state, you're supposed to pay your local sales taxes, and then file for a reimbursement from the state you paid the original tax to - but it's not enforced. Now the individual states ARE saying - hey, here's a way we CAN enforce it.
I think that would work out very well: Congress dictates ONE tax for the internet in terms of sales tax. It's ludicrous to force anyone (even if they do have the resources) to have to divert resources to figure out fifty different sales taxes. Also, there is the risk of being double-taxed at stake (Company A pays sales tax wherever its accounting division is located, and passes it on to customer, and then customer has to pay sales tax again of his/her home state).
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
By the very same reasoning they use for Amazon, if anyone goes to a phone located in Rhode Island and makes a purchase of anything, it's the same as going to a brick and mortar of that shop in the state and is also subject to equivalent taxes. Even ordering by US mail out of a catalog would reason out to the same logic (providing the catalog and/or mailbox is physically located in R.I.). Amazon might even be able to use that to force R.I. to either include phone orders across the board or drop the bill/law.
pay taxes?
Are internet retailers using your sewer? You schools? Your police?
Then why should people living in another state fund yours?
Tax them where they reside.
Whats next? Taxing people for giving gifts to people in higher tax states? Hell, lets tax people's medical benefits - oops.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Let them pay their fair share of taxes,
They already do, considering that they're consuming approximately 0% of the state's resources.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The problem with this story is that it isn't clear where the sale has taken place. I click a button in Massachusetts, paid for the object with money from a Connecticut bank, the company hosting the web site is in New York, the headquarters of the company is in Arkansas, the shipment is made from New Hampshire, my mom receive the materials in Illinois (I dropped shipped her a gift). Where was the sale? I don't know what the right answer is... but I'm certain that state legislatures rushing to get something passed will end up making a mess bigger than the one they find themselves in now. I don't blame Amazon for pushing back. If I were Amazon management I'd be doing the same thing.
No governments only diverse taxes when they have helped for example you can charge sales tax on some things because you (presumably) drove on government roads to get there. On the other hand, when I order something online especially virtual goods like a song, e-book or movie what did the government do to deserve the tax? Nothing. Therefore they should not be taxed.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
You really want to go down that line of reasoning?
The customer pays for his/her bandwidth.
FedEx and UPS pay their taxes for road use(fuel).
Et al, etc.
This is absolutely correct! In fact, you are supposed to report and pay use tax on everything you purchase - even used stuff from garage sales, (not that anyone does).
"Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
Sure, but you can always pay more for roads.
Not that they get any better when you do that. You can just pay more for them. It helps you get re-elected. What, you're not in Congress? Oh, well disregard everything I just said...
LOOK, SEX SCANDALS!
No, this is no more than another reach where states are trying to end run the commerce clause which has prevented them from successfully taxing out of state mail order purchases. This one is especially stupid because they are saying "because Amazon does business with contractors in our state, they have to act as a tax collection agent for us." This is a change in two ways:
* The state is extending the definition of "nexus" to include the use of contractors. Historically, a nexus includes employees and/or property.
* The state is basically telling mail order merchants to not spend a dime in the state or you have to become a tax collection agent for the state.
Basically, N. Carolina and Rhode Island are shooting themselves in the head and preventing mail order operations from using any in-state contractors to do things like print catalogs, mail catalogs, provide call center services, freight forwarding, delivery services and so on. In other words, no jobs for your state from any mail order company.
This is why there is a commerce clause in the constitution - to prevent one state from taking actions that unfairly burden a business or citizen in another state. Why should I care what sales tax is in California? My business is in Indiana. Eventually this will go to the supreme court and get tossed just like every other attempt by one state to make businesses in another state collect taxes for them. This has been building up for a while and we're due for another 8-1 decision in favor of the Federal Government having EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over interstate commerce.
-- $G
Also, I want to tax the taxes that are being taxed on those goods running through my state.
Amazon is basically screaming: "Taxation Without Representation" and taking a stand against what it believes is unconstitutional taxation. (ie being taxed by a foreign (different state) government) This is exactly what happen in the mid-late 1700s and the reason the US is it's own country rather than part of the United Kingdom.
I completely agree with Amazon. I happen to have an Amazon shop (I'm not located in either of those states) I know it screws the webstore owner, but Amazon is doing the right thing and THEY need to stand up to their own state's goverment and let them know that they are hurting their own people by being greeding and trying to tax people that don't even live in their state.
So the store doesn't get a sale, doesn't pay the stakeholder, who was presumably going to spend money in the state on taxable goods and services. The state still loses. The original sale doesn't generate revenue and the seller won't be purchasing anything that generates tax revenue with the proceeds of the sale that didn't happen. Sorry states, there will always be at least one state that will take advantage of this and host amazon friendly affiliate websites. This is kinda like how you can incorporate an LLC in any state you have an "agent" in (100 bucks a year gets you agent representation in any state) but no one in their right minds incorporates an LLC outside of Nevada or Delaware because of the incredibly low taxes and business friendly body of case law they've produced. You still have to pay personal income tax in the state you perform work but you get a credit for taxes you pay to other states for your state of residence taxes.
No. Amazon is simply not collecting sales tax for states they are not located in. Why should Amazon (an out of state company) have to pay to do the job of the RI Department of Revenue? Since when did they delete the commerce clause from the constitution?
-- $G
Amazon is trying their best to avoid having to collect sales tax (and compete on a level playing field).
Wrong. RI and NC are trying to expand the definition of nexus to force mail order companies not located in their state to collect sales tax from citizens in RI and NC.
At present the playing field is level. Businesses outside RI and NC don't have to collect RI and NC sales tax, and business inside RI and NC don't have to collect tax for the rest of the country. That's pretty fair.
-- $G
And I suppose the person with 50k in credit card debt and a house in foreclosure is also in that situation because they can't raise enough income?
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the million dollar house and their insatiable desire for new goods. A good rule of thumb for people (and states for this matter) in debt is to first create a budget that reduces spending below ones income. Not to figure out a way to make more money. This is not rocket science.
Or they could just cut back. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. This is just as important for States as individuals.
Get off my lawn.
Will some of the sales tax go towards purchasing a clue/sense-of-humor for certain, sadly bereft individuals?
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
Your entire post is just wrong. First, Amazon dosn't pay sales tax on items you buy from them in thier home state unless it is a state where they have a nexus. Second, if your home state has a Sales Tax it most likly has a Use Tax and you are supposed to pay that tax on items you buy from out of state that haven't had sales tax paid on them in the other state and sometimes even if it has. This has NOTHING to do with the Commerce clause of the US Constitution.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
What is taxed twice is your return. Your tax return for paying to much in taxes is counted as income and taxed the following year. Even though those monies were taxes collected.
You have the world's crappiest accountant.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Well, they could stop spending. They could start to consider that this massive govt. run healthcare (regardless of your views on it) is something we absolutely cannot afford right now. They could stop with the pork in bills.
Why can't the govt. do what a 'sane' normal household does when it is having budget problems. The first thing is to cut spending!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Taxes are never levied for the benefit of the taxed. I live in Oregon (NO Sales Tax!) so I REFUSE to pay yours. I never voted for it (Taxation without representation ring a bell?) and my states has voted NO on sales tax NINE TIMES. Fix your deficit the way all of us do: Spend less. Too many state wastrels on the payroll? fire a few.
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
You can't calculate tax just by zip code - if you could, it'd be simple. You have to account for states, counties and municipalities, and zip codes don't line up completely with at least the last two. Zip+4 might, but that in itself is a nightmare (Zip+4 can be down to 10 or fewer individual addresses).
A couple of examples: I live in a suburb of Chicago that gets much of its revenue from sales taxes on malls, etc. within the city limits. Its tax rate is different from the next municipality over, but my zip code overlaps that suburb. Another example: my office is in a town that straddles the border between Cook County, IL and Lake County, IL. The Zip code at my office (in Cook) and at the hospital where I have customers (in Lake) are the same, but the tax rates differ by 3% (Cook has among the highest sales taxes in the nation, if not the highest).
fencepost
just a little off
You wouldn't. Amazon doesn't pay (sales) taxes at whatever locale they are at. And no state can charge a tax for shipping goods through the state (as mentioned in your Constitution excerpt), except as a fee for using the road system. That only leaves the final point of sale.
Why should ordering something over the internet and having it delivered to your door result in you paying less sales tax?
First, the word you are looking for is interstate. Intrastate purchases are taxed. Secondly, the interstate aspect of the transaction is not being taxed, rather it's the purchase in Rhode Island of a good that is.
I fail to see the distinction between paying sales tax on goods purchased at Amazon and goods purchased in a local Walmart (when discussing non-Washington/Arkansas residents). In either case you're purchasing an item in, e.g., RI and accepting delivery there. The actual charges are applied from a credit card company in Deleware to an account, which you will then pay later with a check drawn on some other corporation. Why should the Internet be magical?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Wrong, as with most of the rest of your post. There is no such "reimbursement". If a resident of Maryland physically goes to Pennsylvania and buys something, the sales tax on the transaction is owed to Pennsylvania. There is no reimbursement, even if Maryland also demands a "use tax" on the item.
The Supreme Court decided some time ago (in a mail order case, not an Internet case) that companies could not be required to collect sales taxes for states in which they did not have a "nexus". It's not a matter of a "tax holiday" or of Congress sitting on their behind; Congress has no obligation to act for the states in this matter. It's not a matter of enforcing state law. It's a matter of states trying to widen the definition of that "nexus" beyond what the courts have accepted in the past. It probably won't work, but Amazon isn't willing to get into a court battle over it. Newegg, on the other hand, after initially collecting New York tax, ceased doing so after consulting their lawyers. NY has apparently not taken them up on the challenge.
Equally bullshit is your state trying to tax me for a purchase when I've never set foot in it.
Please understand how sales taxes work before you submit nonsense like that.
I'm not going to explain the whole system, but suffice it to say that if I pay sales tax in one jurisdiction, then that tax paid is a credit to my tax due in another jurisdiction. This is Amazon's biggest objection -- the nightmare of calculating taxes paid and taxes due.
If I'm an RI retailer, and I buy directly from Amazon (as a wholesaler to me), I charge sales tax to my customers in RI. Then when I have to pay the sales tax to RI, I deduct what I have paid to Amazon as sales tax on my purchases from them. However, since Amazon has no nexus in RI, I'm not paying any tax to them.
What the new tax structure is saying is that retailers shouldn't be able to escape the tax requirement by only being a referrer to Amazon. So sales taxes are due to RI.
In essence, RI & NC are saying that the referrers are retail outlets, not referrers.
This does not raise any specter of double taxation or worse. It's just a battle over whether Amazon referrers are retailers or not.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Proposition 13 isn't the problem, it really isn't. The problem is the state legislature which continues to add socialist benefits to socialist benefits.
The Political Beast eats its own, creates an unsustainable welfare state, paid for by exorbitant taxes. We currently have Sales taxes fast approaching 10%, chasing the merchants from the state. Brick and Mortar shops cannot compete with Amazon's sales tax free setup, even if the prices are the same, and you include shipping!
We wouldn't be in this problem if the legislature (Democratic LOCKED)got off its fat ass and started to CUT spending on programs that do nothing but ensure voters vote for (D) candidates.
Oh, but that is "taking away from the poor", and we can't do that! Well, with that attitude, eventually everyone left in the state will be "poor" with nobody left able to pay the taxes needed to support them.
Hell, I'd move if I could afford it, and I might not be able to afford NOT to shortly.
How is it, that the solution that most people think of first is "More Taxes" rather than "cut spending" ??? When is it ENOUGH????
And lets not "fix" healthcare until they can fix the economy (HAHHAHA).
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Amazon runs a business, not a charity. It's not about the good of the state and it is not their job to try to level the playing field, they're job is to make as much money as possible for the shareholders. Additionally, they have the RIGHT to NOT do business as they please. As far as I'm concerned R.I. can tax away, but don't expect people to sit by idle while they do it...
An inventor is a man who asks 'Why?' of the universe and lets nothing stand between the answer and his mind.
It's not that they're being unreasonable, per se. It's that they're applying and old model to a new technology. It's a bit like trying to do rocket science with the math available to Aristotle.
Physical location matters little on the Internet. But our countries and states are defined by physical location. So it's not a trivial problem, but applying solutions that simply don't fit will not solve anything.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
"Once wealthy individuals pay their fair share of taxes, then we can talk about eliminating some business taxes."
You mean once ten percent of the population no longer has to pay ninety percent of the taxes?
You mean when fifty percent of the population finally pay more than zero net tax?
You mean when the vast majority stop getting more benefits than they are paying for then maybe we can spend less?
Yes that sounds great.
Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every click you make
Every step you take
I'll be taxing you
Every single day
Every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
I'll be taxing you
Oh, cant you see
You belong to me
How my poor RIDT aches
With every step you take
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
This will also affect the large number of non-spam affiliate marketers. For instance the site in my sig. I have made a strong effort to make it a value added service and not just spam. (Washington/Utah have the most hikes listed so far)
Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
It truly amazes me how few people understand even basic economics.
Amazon does not have brick and mortar stores. So it's not the same. In fact, when the tax laws where written that apply to "mail-order" they understood this basic concept. Based on those laws you only have to pay sales tax if the company you're ordering from has stores(brick and mortar) in your county.
Facts: Amazon pays taxes. They pay taxes on their employees, properties, income, purchases, etc. The shipping companies also pay taxes. In order to pay all of these taxes the price of their products and services get marked up.
So, when you order an item from Amazon, a surprising amount of what you're really paying for is indirect tax. Including local taxes paid by the shipping company.
The gross tax lean across the US is over 50%. It's insane. Anyone who agrees that there should be any new and/or more taxation is a complete and utter moron. More taxation increases the cost of living, which increases poverty, which increases crime rates, which has the end effect of idiot politicians stating that we need more tax. It's a corrupt cycle that killing this country and needs to end.
Found an article about companies and taxes.. it was one of the sources in the Amazon.com WP article i think.
Nvidia at 2.2% tax: http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/04/0423_corporate_taxes/22.htm
Boeing at 3.2% : http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/04/0423_corporate_taxes/18.htm
Amazon.com at 4.1% : http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/04/0423_corporate_taxes/15.htm
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
You already pay a tax to maintain the information superhighway. It's called your monthly cable or DSL bill. Neither individual states nor the federal government actually have any cost incurred in maintaining any part of the internet - it's all done by private companies which are paid for their efforts. You pay your ISP, they pay their ISP, and so on.
Of course it's legal. It's called "collecting sales tax," and it's legal everywhere in the US for a retailer to do so.
And let's not call it anything else, because we do not want to confuse the issue.
That would mess up the plan of keeping a majority of the votes^H^H^H^H^Hpeople dependent on the government...
Just imagined what that'd be: a tax collector approaches, I grab my shotgun. Sounds fun!
Circumcision is child abuse.
Well, from everything I'm seeing and hearing now...this current govt. healthcare thing will cost aobut $1Trillion additional money, and still leave about 35 million people uncovered.
How about just starting with regulating that insurance companies can't deny you for pre-existing conditions. How about broadening the HSA (Health Savings Account) to be more flexible and allow more citizens to save MORE of their own money pre-tax for their routine health needs, and only need insurance for catastrophic needs?
I did that for awhile and it was great. Why should people not budget for routine health needs like they budget for other things in life (food, shelter, etc)? Hell, when I was doing that and told Dr. and labs I had work (even an MRI) I was paying on my own, they gave me at least a 15% discount right on the spot.
I found that I could shop around for Dr. and what all for best price and service. That puts true competition back into the system...that would lower costs, it also cuts out the bean counters and other middlemen.
Trouble is...that wouldn't allow the govt. to have a heavy hand in the midst of it all, and with the current govt...that isn't a goal of their apparently.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Hawaii is now banned also.
Amazon started litigation to fight the New York tax that is ongoing. By refusing to do business there, they would lose the legal case because they would be admitting the tax is legal.
They are taking the position they have in other States, partly because the States are smaller, and partly because they would be forced into more litigation over the same issues they are fighting in New York. I would bet their lawyers believe they will eventually win in SCOTUS and then they will restore their old practices.
But, in March of this year, SCOTUS refused to hear a case from New Mexico involving Dell. The New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled in that case that Dell's use of contractors to provide Warranty Support was enough of a nexus to require Dell to collect New Mexico Sales Tax.
And my infrastructure pays for parks I enjoy, roads I use, schools which educate the people around me so that they don't all turn to street crime, police to deal with the ones who do, etc. Taxes buy me civilization.
I don't believe that is true, at least not according to this:
http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2009/06/duty-of-wealthy-is-to-be-robbed-by.html
Granted, its a 25 year old study, but I don't imagine the situation has improved.
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
What nonsense. You will never be foreclosed on if you're making your mortgage payments. What ever gave you the idea that a house could be forclosed because it's theoretical resale value fell?
There is *no overlap* between "living frugally" and "house you can't afford". House prices here are stupid so I *rent*. Fuck all the assholes too proud to rent.
The only possible reasons for forclosure are "irresponsible living" and "two disasters" (merely losing your job or unexpeced medical expenses are no excuse, only both at the same time). BTW, I knew the housing bubble would pop. Everyone rational who had bothered to compare house prices to historical trends knew the housing bubble would pop. Only people with a near-religious belief that "house prices only go up" were blind to the obvious.
Nothing but pathetic excuses for irresponsible lifestyles.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Then the government needs to fix its tax structure, not try to charge us more sales tax.
It's simple: fuel tax pays for roads. If it's not enough, then raise the fuel tax. Instead of hobbling the economy by taxing everyone for purchases, it would make a lot more sense to tax road users for their use of the road, and let that cost be passed on as appropriate (i.e., someone shipping lots of heavy stuff will be forced to raise prices, whereas someone selling digital goods won't).
I believe all sales taxes should be abolished in favor or progressive income taxes
And I believe just the opposite. The federal income tax should be abolished, then the size of the federal government cut back to it's Constitutional limits. Once that's done if user fees aren't enough them have a federal sales tax. People should not be taxed for their hard work, just for what they buy and or use and the pollution they create.
Amazon should charge sales tax on those states that pass these laws.
Why should Amazon or any other business pay sales tax to a state they do not operate in? They shouldn't period!!!
The fight is between the citizens of those states and their publicly elected governments, not between Amazon and the government.
This is as it should be between Amazon and those states who would require Amazon to collect taxes for goods sold to residents of those states. Those states are demanding Amazon spent more money to collect and distribute taxes. And the US Supreme Court has already told states they could not do that to a business that was not located in those states that want collect sales taxes from businesses that are not located in the state.
This has everything to do with the commerce clause.
That's right, these states are trying to get around the commerce clause of the Constitution of the USA. And they should not be allowed to. Now if the federal government had stayed within the limits put on it by the Constitution or is forced to then it got rid of or lowered income taxes then states could raise their own taxes to pay their own needs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?