Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Forbids Crossing State Lines With Rented Textbooks
New submitter Galaga88 writes "In what is probably another attempt to evade charging sales tax, Amazon's terms of use through Warehouse Deals forbids crossing state lines with certain rented textbooks. The penalty for doing so? Retroactive forced purchase of the book. At least it's yours to keep afterwards. 'Some experts believe the policy is another reflection of the extreme lengths to which the company continues to go in order to avoid collecting state sales taxes. But could Amazon’s use restriction and other complicated rental conditions cause problems for students or lead potential textbook renters to take their business elsewhere? It seems like a policy that would be nearly impossible to enforce. But Richard Hershman, vice president of government relations at the National Association of College Stores, points out that if a student has textbooks sent to her home state and ships them back from a different state where she attends college, Amazon could easily note the new shipping location.'"
This sounds less like Amazon being evil and trying to hurt people. It sounds like they put that in to cover their butt. They don't have to deal with book makers saying they are "promoting" braking the law.
I'm sure I'm not alone in being fed the fuck up with corporations taking control of different aspects of our lives via unilateral contracts. I think it's high time we demand such obligations be banned, thus empowering consumers to at least have a little say in how a contract is worded and executed.
Unilateral contract == legalized rape entirely too often.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Seriously, or, I transferred to another college, why does Amazon care? If I rent from a physical location, and haul them myselves, does it matter to whom I rent them from?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
See here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/contract+of+adhesion
adhesion contract (contract of adhesion) n. a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained. Example: a rich landlord dealing with a poor tenant who has no choice and must accept all terms of a lease, no matter how restrictive or burdensome, since the tenant cannot afford to move. An adhesion contract can give the little guy the opportunity to claim in court that the contract with the big shot is invalid. This doctrine should be used and applied more often, but the same big guy-little guy inequity may apply in the ability to afford a trial or find and pay a resourceful lawyer.
In essence, the "lawyer" in this case for students would be a class-action lawyer, and now you understand why major corporations and the wealthy (who, in general control them through stock ownership) hate the idea of class action suits and have done their best to have forced arbitration, banning class actions and the like.
I'd rather we have class actions that slap down these corporations rather than have these sociopaths-by-design run amok. Call me a socialist if you will.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Explain to me how exactly they would enforce this policy? They have no idea where the book goes unless it's RFID tagged or something. You could take the book around the world and they would be none the wiser. Just make sure you return it on time and all is good.
Unless the textbook is 18-years old. Allowances will be made if you're only two or three years younger than the textbook.
To "evade" taxes is illegal. But to "avoid" taxes is legal.
Even a "tax shelter" that avoids paying 100% of tax might be legal, depending on circumstances.
There is wide agreement that taxes discourage people from certain behaviors, and tax breaks encourage people to do whatever gives the tax break. So, for example, J. Random Person could invest in solar panels on the roof of his home, and potentially get enough of a tax credit to offset his tax liability.
Should we be angry that someone paid no taxes? The tax break on solar panels was there to encourage people to invest in solar panels, and J. Random Person did that. This is the system working as intended. Society wanted to encourage more solar panels, and more solar panels were in fact installed.
Now, consider Amazon. The current weird tax system is the law of the land. (I think a "flat tax" with no exceptions would have many good features, but it's just a fantasy at this point. We are so far from a flat tax that it's really not worth discussing.) If Amazon can do some weird thing like banning interstate use of rented books, and the tax system is currently set up to reward that, then I don't blame Amazon for doing it.
If you don't like it, maybe you should tell your elected representatives that you would like to see changes in the way sales tax works.
P.S. I am not claiming that the current sales tax system was intentionally set up to encourage Amazon to take these steps. The tax code is so convoluted now that weird corner-cases must be expected. But whether this was intended or not, if that's what the law encourages Amazon to do, and we don't change the law, we shouldn't be surprised if Amazon does this.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
So, what then for cases like Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington? They both are reasonably sized cities which border each other on a state line, effectively creating a single metropolitan area. Many sleep in Vancouver, yet live their lives in Portland; and, of course, vice versa.
That "ridiculous lawmaking" is state and local governments trying to collect sales taxes.
No, that's state and local governments trying to coerce corporations into collecting sales tax for them, when there is already a use tax law, and it's the state and local governments job to do the collecting.
As a retailer you get charged VAT by your wholesaler and you charge VAT to your customer. The difference goes to / returned from the government.
So something that ends up being tax exempt as a retailer you recover whatever VAT you were charged on the product. Schools are often tax exempt but you buy from the wholesaler as if you are selling to the public.
If you sell at a loss you recover the VAT you lost.
In the UK businesses claim back VAT they have spent at the end of the year. This does add a metric crapload of paperwork throughout the year for all the stuff you need to claim back on. The advantage of VAT over sales tax is that it is harder to avoid, in theory.