8 ms·

I just received my termination email. I believe I have a whopping $4 owed to me at this point, so I'm not upset about losing a large amount of revenue; I just

by logic 16y ago

I just received my termination email. I believe I have a whopping $4 owed to me at this point, so I'm not upset about losing a large amount of revenue; I just have a difficult time understanding the rationale here. I'm an affiliate: I direct traffic to Amazon, nothing more. Or put another way, I'm a third-party marketing arm; I don't participate in purchases as either buyer or seller. But apparently, I'm involved enough to constitute a physical presence for Amazon in Illinois? If I apply this same logic to out-of-state companies contracting with marketing firms here in Illinois to promote their brand here and elsewhere, I get even more confused about the message being sent. Perhaps it's best if I don't think about it very hard.

Vivtek 16y ago
Might be better yet to send a strongly worded letter to your statehouse rep.
- stronglyworded 16y ago
  saying what? that you believe Amazon should be exempt from taxes that B&M stores pay?
- glesica 16y ago
  Won't work, Wal-Mart probably already bought everyone in Springfield.
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    Ha. True. But not writing a letter also won't work. Sooner or later we're going to have to take the damn country back, you know.
    - smokeyj 16y ago
      You're writing letters and lobbies are writing checks. Who in this equation carries weight?
  - kgermino 16y ago
    Hey man no politician in Illinois has ever been bought off. I'm sure this law passed strictly because the representatives in Springfield felt it was the best thing for the state, and definitely not because Walmart made a $25,000 campaign contribution.
    - iwwr 16y ago
      It's sad that pittances like these ($25K) influence (direct?) decisions that then divert hundreds of millions or billions.
      - Vivtek 16y ago
        In all honesty, the pittance is just a token, an indication that everybody is on the same page. The real compensation is that there are lots of sub rosa benefits to the politician during their time in the statehouse or Congress or what have you, and as soon as he or she has had enough of public service, there's always going to be an extremely well-paid consultancy waiting. You have to look at the overall career path.
eykanal 16y ago
The message being sent is simple; Amazon is receiving an unfair competitive advantage by not paying taxes (all their prices can be lower), and the legislature is trying to figure out some way they can "force" Amazon to have a local presence through people like you. Amazon, being the 800-lb gorilla they are, just said the equivalent of, "I'm taking my ball and going home." They did this because you were the "arm" of Amazon the legislature was trying to attack. In Amazon's eyes, it's easier just to cut off that arm than to try to support it and pay higher fees.
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  > Amazon is receiving an unfair competitive advantage by not paying taxes... I don't understand this reasoning. They have to pay a shipping tax -- that is, regardless of the price of the item, the buyer is going to have to have it shipped to their home. If Amazon's offering free shipping, that just means they're choosing to absorb the cost, which eliminates a competitive advantage; if the buyer pays shipping, then that increases the total cost of the item, and again, that eliminates Amazon's competitive advantage. I don't think this has anything to do with unfair competitive advantages, and everything to do with states simply looking for ways to grab more tax revenue ... so that they can turn around and offer it as cuts to other businesses, of course.
  - btilly 16y ago
    Here is an explanation. Residents of Illinois owe sales tax on their purchases. The state knows that people won't choose to pay this, so the state makes merchants collect the tax. If the merchants are based in the state, the courts say the state can do this. If the merchants are not based in the state, then the courts have ruled this to be interstate commerce, which is something that only the federal government has power over, and therefore the states can't do it. (The issue is hardly new. It was settled over a century ago with catalog companies.) Note that the tax is theoretically owed by the residents of the state regardless of where the merchant is. But in practice people wind up paying the tax at Walmart, and not at Amazon. Which gives Amazon an advantage.
    - 16y ago

by logic 16y ago

Vivtek 16y ago

Might be better yet to send a strongly worded letter to your statehouse rep.

stronglyworded 16y ago
saying what? that you believe Amazon should be exempt from taxes that B&M stores pay?
glesica 16y ago
Won't work, Wal-Mart probably already bought everyone in Springfield.
- Vivtek 16y ago
  Ha. True. But not writing a letter also won't work. Sooner or later we're going to have to take the damn country back, you know.
  - smokeyj 16y ago
    You're writing letters and lobbies are writing checks. Who in this equation carries weight?
- kgermino 16y ago
  Hey man no politician in Illinois has ever been bought off. I'm sure this law passed strictly because the representatives in Springfield felt it was the best thing for the state, and definitely not because Walmart made a $25,000 campaign contribution.
  - iwwr 16y ago
    It's sad that pittances like these ($25K) influence (direct?) decisions that then divert hundreds of millions or billions.
    - Vivtek 16y ago
      In all honesty, the pittance is just a token, an indication that everybody is on the same page. The real compensation is that there are lots of sub rosa benefits to the politician during their time in the statehouse or Congress or what have you, and as soon as he or she has had enough of public service, there's always going to be an extremely well-paid consultancy waiting. You have to look at the overall career path.

eykanal 16y ago

The message being sent is simple; Amazon is receiving an unfair competitive advantage by not paying taxes (all their prices can be lower), and the legislature is trying to figure out some way they can "force" Amazon to have a local presence through people like you. Amazon, being the 800-lb gorilla they are, just said the equivalent of, "I'm taking my ball and going home." They did this because you were the "arm" of Amazon the legislature was trying to attack. In Amazon's eyes, it's easier just to cut off that arm than to try to support it and pay higher fees.

thaumaturgy 16y ago
> Amazon is receiving an unfair competitive advantage by not paying taxes... I don't understand this reasoning. They have to pay a shipping tax -- that is, regardless of the price of the item, the buyer is going to have to have it shipped to their home. If Amazon's offering free shipping, that just means they're choosing to absorb the cost, which eliminates a competitive advantage; if the buyer pays shipping, then that increases the total cost of the item, and again, that eliminates Amazon's competitive advantage. I don't think this has anything to do with unfair competitive advantages, and everything to do with states simply looking for ways to grab more tax revenue ... so that they can turn around and offer it as cuts to other businesses, of course.
- btilly 16y ago
  Here is an explanation. Residents of Illinois owe sales tax on their purchases. The state knows that people won't choose to pay this, so the state makes merchants collect the tax. If the merchants are based in the state, the courts say the state can do this. If the merchants are not based in the state, then the courts have ruled this to be interstate commerce, which is something that only the federal government has power over, and therefore the states can't do it. (The issue is hardly new. It was settled over a century ago with catalog companies.) Note that the tax is theoretically owed by the residents of the state regardless of where the merchant is. But in practice people wind up paying the tax at Walmart, and not at Amazon. Which gives Amazon an advantage.
  - 16y ago