4 ms·
responding to each point. 1) expecting to "make that money" when no other state has is idiocy. 2) the "stake in the ground" is just symbolic. Do they really thi
by jonkelly 15y ago
responding to each point.
1) expecting to "make that money" when no other state has is idiocy.
2) the "stake in the ground" is just symbolic. Do they really think that helps at all?
3) like I said, I can see both sides of tax debate, I just find it wildly irresponsible to nuke the revenue for a bunch of your constituents because you've lost track of priorities.
- jbooth 15y agoRE: 1), you'll notice a lot of big market states have all jumped at the same time. That makes the jump look a lot more appealing to me if I'm a state legislator. Eventually Amazon won't want to forfeit affiliate business in every big state economy except Texas and Delaware. Or that's the gamble, at least.
- jonkelly 15y agonostromo had the right response to that below. There are plenty of jurisdictions for the larger affiliates to jump over to. I'd be very surprised if Amazon doesn't have a 95/5 ratio like most affiliate programs in terms of revenue produced by largest affiliates. The bigger affiliates will have no problem incorporating in one of the no tax states.
- 18pfsmt 15y agoJust to illustrate your point, in Colorado the legislature did this same thing (lobbying by small business was used as justification), but the large affiliates I'm familiar with (2, specifically) moved their offices to Laramie, Wyoming (2.5hrs from Denver). Keep in mind, there are ~5M people in our entire state.