3 ms·

How Internet sales taxes in CA could drive VigLink & others out of the state

8 points by waderoush 15y ago

MediaBehavior 15y ago
I wonder how such taxation policies might even loosen the appeal of Silicon Valley as the center for startups. Granted, a lot of other relatively business-unfriendly California tax structures have not (so far as one can tell - without a control group).
rexreed 15y ago
This link keeps bouncing me to their general mobile page.
- MediaBehavior 15y ago
  From what browser? I had no problem with either Mac-FF or Safari.
- pmh 15y ago
  Same happened to me when I had NoScript enabled.
jbooth 15y ago
Uh, the tax is on items purchased by Cali residents from the internet, right? As in, the vast majority of the effect will be to tax (mostly) out-of-state businesses while creating a level playing field for local retail businesses that have to pay sales tax? Why would that drive anyone out of state? They'd have to pay the tax anyways if they're out of state and selling to California residents. As expected, the article provided no reasoning. Ctrl-F found the word "tax" once and it was a non-sequitor about how great the company is and they're gonna leave because of this tax.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- ojbyrne 15y ago
  also "more on that in a moment," but there was nothing further. Perhaps you're supposed to refresh the page continually while the writer updates the page. EDIT: It's on page 3 of the article.
- oroup 15y ago
  I'm Oliver Roup, the CEO of VigLink and the guy interviewed in the article. The interstate commerce clause of the constitution and subsequent case law establishes that one state may not tax the businesses of another unless it has a physical presence ("a nexus") in it's state. California and a number of other states are attempting to redefine nexus more broadly in an attempt to be able to force eg Amazon to collect sales tax from it's residents. Amazon has established that they would rather stop doing business with CA affiliates than (effectively) raise prices. This should matter to you because affiliates are just the tip of the iceberg. One of the California proposals already contemplates that having subsidiaries, servers or _vendors_ in CA would establish a nexus. So let's say you're the entrepreneurs behind CloudKick (to use an already exited example from Y Combinator.) If these proposals had been law when they were looking for customers, they would have found many customers concerned that using CloudKick would obligate them to collect sales tax from their customers in California. Collecting the taxes would of course only be part of the issue - computing when and how much to collect in accordance with the latest version of the law in every state would be a significant burden. The states of course are perfectly entitled to seek new revenue, especially in times of economic distress. However we believe lawmakers should stick to strategies that work. Historically these laws have resulted in _reduced_ tax revenue and job flight. (the merchants cut ties with affiliates in those states and the affiliates either move or cease operation.) They also make investment in these kinds of business models more challenging. For a state as dependent as California on innovation, we think this is just bad public policy. (Also the Performance Marketing Association has filed suit against the state of Illinois arguing that it's affiliate tax law is unconstitutional.) The correct place for this to be taken up is at the federal level since the federal government actually does have the right to impose taxes on interstate commerce. Senator Durbin of Illinois has announced he intends to introduce legislation to address this federally in the fall. If you're still reading and you're motivated to do something, check out http://25000businessesatrisk.com/ http://25000businessesatrisk.com/ for California or http://performancemarketingassociation.com/nexus-tax http://performancemarketingassociation.com/nexus-tax for the rest of the country. Oliver Roup Founder / CEO, VigLink
  - jbooth 15y ago
    Thanks for commenting, I clicked through to the third page eventually and saw that reasoning. Sucks that you guys are the ones getting punished, here, the "nexus" mechanics are stupid. I'm not a California resident but I do think that if they have a sales tax, it should be across the board and include things purchased on the internet by CA residents.

8 points by waderoush 15y ago

I wonder how such taxation policies might even loosen the appeal of Silicon Valley as the center for startups. Granted, a lot of other relatively business-unfriendly California tax structures have not (so far as one can tell - without a control group).

rexreed 15y ago

This link keeps bouncing me to their general mobile page.

MediaBehavior 15y ago
From what browser? I had no problem with either Mac-FF or Safari.
pmh 15y ago
Same happened to me when I had NoScript enabled.

jbooth 15y ago

Uh, the tax is on items purchased by Cali residents from the internet, right? As in, the vast majority of the effect will be to tax (mostly) out-of-state businesses while creating a level playing field for local retail businesses that have to pay sales tax? Why would that drive anyone out of state? They'd have to pay the tax anyways if they're out of state and selling to California residents. As expected, the article provided no reasoning. Ctrl-F found the word "tax" once and it was a non-sequitor about how great the company is and they're gonna leave because of this tax.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ojbyrne 15y ago
also "more on that in a moment," but there was nothing further. Perhaps you're supposed to refresh the page continually while the writer updates the page. EDIT: It's on page 3 of the article.
oroup 15y ago
I'm Oliver Roup, the CEO of VigLink and the guy interviewed in the article. The interstate commerce clause of the constitution and subsequent case law establishes that one state may not tax the businesses of another unless it has a physical presence ("a nexus") in it's state. California and a number of other states are attempting to redefine nexus more broadly in an attempt to be able to force eg Amazon to collect sales tax from it's residents. Amazon has established that they would rather stop doing business with CA affiliates than (effectively) raise prices. This should matter to you because affiliates are just the tip of the iceberg. One of the California proposals already contemplates that having subsidiaries, servers or _vendors_ in CA would establish a nexus. So let's say you're the entrepreneurs behind CloudKick (to use an already exited example from Y Combinator.) If these proposals had been law when they were looking for customers, they would have found many customers concerned that using CloudKick would obligate them to collect sales tax from their customers in California. Collecting the taxes would of course only be part of the issue - computing when and how much to collect in accordance with the latest version of the law in every state would be a significant burden. The states of course are perfectly entitled to seek new revenue, especially in times of economic distress. However we believe lawmakers should stick to strategies that work. Historically these laws have resulted in _reduced_ tax revenue and job flight. (the merchants cut ties with affiliates in those states and the affiliates either move or cease operation.) They also make investment in these kinds of business models more challenging. For a state as dependent as California on innovation, we think this is just bad public policy. (Also the Performance Marketing Association has filed suit against the state of Illinois arguing that it's affiliate tax law is unconstitutional.) The correct place for this to be taken up is at the federal level since the federal government actually does have the right to impose taxes on interstate commerce. Senator Durbin of Illinois has announced he intends to introduce legislation to address this federally in the fall. If you're still reading and you're motivated to do something, check out http://25000businessesatrisk.com/ http://25000businessesatrisk.com/ for California or http://performancemarketingassociation.com/nexus-tax http://performancemarketingassociation.com/nexus-tax for the rest of the country. Oliver Roup Founder / CEO, VigLink
- jbooth 15y ago
  Thanks for commenting, I clicked through to the third page eventually and saw that reasoning. Sucks that you guys are the ones getting punished, here, the "nexus" mechanics are stupid. I'm not a California resident but I do think that if they have a sales tax, it should be across the board and include things purchased on the internet by CA residents.