Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Re-Opens Affiliate Program In California
An anonymous reader writes "Due to Governor Jerry Brown temporarily repealing the tax law opposed by Amazon, the Amazon Associates Program has been brought back to California."
Amazon will still have to collect sales tax in California in 2013 unless Congress intevenes before then.
It's not as though they weren't selling in California, they just moved their distribution center to a state with more friendly tax laws.
But Amazon isn't the one who owes the sales tax, it's the consumers. If this guy feels the state is being cheated from tax money he should write them a check for what he owes them. He shouldn't need Amazon to do it for him.
Gasoline taxes pay for less and less of California's freeways and roads. This report (http://goo.gl/AgBO0) shows that less than 51% of freeways are paid for by what can be considered as user fees (registrations, gas taxes, etc.). The rest is paid for by bonds and other, unrelated taxes.
From the paper:
"The reasons for the decline in the share of highway costs covered by gas taxes and other âoeuser feesâ are not mysterious. The federal gasoline tax and most state gasoline taxes are not indexed for inflation, and the federal gasoline tax has not been increased since 1993. In 1999, federal gasoline and diesel taxes collected $29.8 billion for highways, and in 2008, the same taxes collected $30.6 billion for highways. Adjusted for inflation, the yearly taxes collected between 1999 and 2008 shrank 32 percent, even though we continued to build more new roads and bridges."
Did you pay your use tax for that kindle? If not, you're the fucking sleazy tax dodger.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
This is about bringing jobs to California, not bringing jobs to America.
If a company moves from one state to another, does this make our economy somehow better?
Having states squabble and bicker and compete with each other for business does not help. It only takes up politician's time and adds bureaucracy and adminstration - effort that does not contribute to production.
Existing companies already have the employees they need to make their product. This is not true in all cases, but as a general rule it works quite well. Jobs come from new companies forming and from newish companies growing big.
We've done everything possible to stifle new business in this country[1][2], and this is just another card in that deck. Giving a break to an existing company creates a barrier for the creation of a new company which might compete. It makes the existing company weak and complacent.
If GE pays no taxes, it's hard to start a company making a competing product.
We could turn the recession around and have a vibrant economy very quickly if we could stop propping up stagnation, and focus on encouraging growth
[1] Innovation: Patent trolls, nuclear patent portfolios, submarine patents, court district shopping, DMCA, ACTA, losing tech to other countries
[2] Infrastructure: Rationed internet(data caps), net neutrality, spotty cell coverage, polluted water supply, inscrutable laws, discretionary enforcement, tax complexity, offshoring
Umm, no.
Actually, the seller isn't required to collect sales taxes on behalf of a State unless they have a physical presence in the State (a brick and mortar store, for instance).
This was settled by the Supremes quite a while back when States tried to get Sears to charge sales taxes on catalog orders.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"