Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Drops California Associates to Avoid Sales Tax
PCM2 writes "Residents of California who participate in the Amazon Associates Program received an email warning them that the program will be terminated as soon as a new California law goes into effect. The law, which CA governor Jerry Brown signed, would require online retailers to collect sales tax on purchases. According to Amazon's statement, 'We oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive. It is supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside California, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors.'"
Because of the closing of many neighbourhood book and CD shops, and the shrinking selection at those locations that remain open, you often can't "buy it at the store today" and online is the only way to go anyway.
Keep in mind that you're still supposed to pay the equivalent "use tax", so any savings were a lot less, unless you're a tax cheat. The vast majority of people, given the opportunity, proved to be tax cheats, which was no surprise.
All California is doing is saying "if you want to compete, compete on an even footing, and don't enable tax cheats." Is it a cash grab? Look around - state governments everywhere need the cash. Which is better - that Amazon be forced to compete fairly, or that you pay for a state bail-out?
It's the same problem with ebay, and the crack-down is inevitable. Let them compete on an equal footing with the locals, and each will win their fair market share based on price, product, and service.
Instead, local business is indirectly subsidizing Amazon by carrying a disproportionate share of the tax burden.
Because liberals realise that the things we take for granted have to be paid for by someone. They also realise that Amazon affiliates have a state-granted advantage over local brick and mortar businesses and has decided to remove that advantage. What is it with righties and their belief that they shouldn't have to pay anything towards the wonderful developed world lifestyle they enjoy?
Even if you are in the right, going to court is not easy and cheap.
You're also not guaranteed to win.
Pretty weak cornerstone to base a nation on. Also, the tax is not on interstate commerce - the goods are free to travel through the state without accruing tax liability. It's only when they find their way into the hands of an end user that they are liable to the sales tax, or the equivalent state use tax. If you can show that sales taxes, levied by the state against the local individual, as opposed to being levied by the state against the vendor, are unconstitutional, you'd have a point.
Just as important, it's not interstate commerce when you have a business presence in-state. The affiliates ARE that presence - affiliates are, after all, affiliated with Amazon, that's why they're called affiliates, duh!!! They're paid by Amazon, not some 3rd party. They're no different than having a commission sales rep working the state, because that's what they are, commission sales reps.
Considering that the "local mom&pop" only has to worry about the one rate that they are responsible for, it's not surprising they can keep track of it.
Apples and orchards.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
I just want to know why it is that when times are tough everyone except the government is expected to make due with less. Why don't politicians have to share in the hardship?
If you think that social security is too large, say that you think that the poor should make due with less. If you think that military spending is too large, say that you think we should bring the troops home. If you think that we spend too much on public infrastructure, say that the government should spend less money building roads, etc... All of those are valid views. However, realize that in none of those cases it isn't the government whose life is affected as government isn't any single entity separate from the people, neither does the government have feelings or a soul.
There is no such thing as attacking "government spending" even though certain people would like to make government appear as a faceless opponent that takes money away from the hard working people and burns it. When you say that government should do with less, you should specify which of the services that the government provides for people should be cut. When you speak about government as it would be a separate entity with goals, motivations, feelings, ability to make sacrifices, etc. I get the same feeling I get when I hear a paranoid person talking about "them". It doesn't make any sense as there isn't such a creature called "government" any more than there is "them". There is just a list of services that the democratic society has decided to provide to the people, the employees needed to provide them and the taxes that have democratically been set in order to provide those services. That being the case, attack the services, not the government.
Why don't liberals seem to understand that imposing a tax has a net effect of reducing economic activity?
Because that's a falsehood repeated over and over by the right-wing. There is a mountain of historical data that shows a correlation between high tax rates and GDP growth. Just google "historical tax rates vs GDP growth" The results may surprise you. Increasing taxes on big business actually increases economic activity because you force people to reinvest in their business as opposed to just pocketing the money as income. Yes, unemployment is very high, but that hasn't stopped businesses from being profitable. If the economy is so bad, why are stock indexes back to prerecession levels? The Dow-Jones average is back to where it was at the beginning of 2007. NASDAQ has rebounded as well. S&P500 is back up.
When times are tough, the government does expect "everyone" to make due with less, they expect those can afford to, to make due with less.
Presumably on a matter of principle you refuse to drive on public roads, send your kids to a public school, make use of Police or Fire services, will never claim any medicare benefits or in any way allow yourself to benefit from any of the publicly funded services that you so deride?
If so, then fine, you're at least acting consistently with your claims, otherwise, not so fine. People always bemoan having to pay *their* money for public services for a bunch of lazy, no-good wasters, right up to the point that *they* suddenly need to make use of them.
Because liberals realize without small things like state-financed universities, companies like Amazon would never exist in the first place.
When people call for government cutbacks, do they realizing they are cutting back future sources of research and highly skilled employees that have made Silicon Valley possible in the first place?
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Yes, Amazon provides some of that lifestyle. Of course Amazon sells it using the DARPA developed internet and ships it on public roads, often using the US Postal Service. They hire programmers who were educated in public schools and at public universities. When they're worried about competition, they sue their competitors in Federal Court, often over patents issued by the USPTO. Their facilities are protected from crime by publicly funded police and from foreign invaders by the US military. If one of their buildings catches fire, it will be put out by publicly funded fire fighters. That's a developed world lifestyle, and it's made possible by the continuous effort of a capable government.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.