6 ms·

How many affiliates are they willing to terminate? All of them (besides the 5 states it already collects for http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.htm

How many affiliates are they willing to terminate? All of them (besides the 5 states it already collects for http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=468512#which http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=4...) ?

flyt 15y ago
yes, all of them.
dablya 15y ago
They probably don't make enough from affiliate traffic to make up for the lost sales if they have to collect the tax.
InclinedPlane 15y ago
Sales tax tends to be 5-10%, affiliate kickbacks tend to be less than that, which means that the increased revenue from affiliate links is in the same ballpark. It would be bad enough if these laws forced amazon to pay sales tax on purchases where the affiliate lived in the same state as the purchaser. Instead these laws force amazon to pay sales tax on all sales where the purchaser lives in a state where there is a significant number of affiliates. The former would not make business sense (raising prices for a much less significant benefit to affiliates) the latter makes even less sense economically. This isn't Amazon trying to skirt paying sales tax, it's merely amazon making a level headed business decision in the face of irrational and grasping legislation.
- Shenglong 15y ago
  Beautifully said. However, now Amazon needs to give California a reason to terminate this law while saving face.
- jbooth 15y ago
  Amazon (or more accurately, the purchaser) should be paying all sales taxes in the state where the purchaser lives, period. Seems cut and dried to me. If the corner store has to run sales tax, Amazon should too. I don't see why a "[adjective] business decision in the face of [adjective] and [adjective] legislation" is in any way different from "skirt paying sales tax".
  - modoc 15y ago
    Because as you say, it's actually the purchaser who needs to pay the sales tax, legally. Not Amazon.
  - jerf 15y ago
    You say it's "cut and dried" at the same time that you are clearly reaching beyond what the laws say. It is not cut and dried as to what one state may make a resident of a completely different state do. Amazon probably is correct, and forcing Amazon to collect sales tax for your state probably is an overreach. It should be pointed out, since so many people forget this in this discussion, that as a resident of a state you are frequently required to pay the sales tax to the state directly in the form of a "use tax". This isn't about consumers owing sales tax, technically the states have already made that happen. It isn't about Amazon "not paying" this tax, because it is the consumer's responsibility at that point. It is about one state forcing an entity not in its jurisdiction to do something for the convenience (and little more) of that state. Amazon's got a pretty strong case here; any principle that makes this compulsion legal is likely to have numerous and manifold "unanticipated results" beyond merely getting Amazon to collect tax.
    - jbooth 15y ago
      Uh, who brought in residents of different states? California residents should be paying the California sales tax on things they buy, and the state has a right to make that happen. Nobody's talking about forcing Colorado residents to do anything. I agree that they should find a way to make it a reasonable burden for Amazon to collect that information, but if local retailers have to collect and Amazon doesn't, that seems unfair and noncompetitive.
      - InclinedPlane 15y ago
        So if an amazon customer living in California buys an item that is fulfilled from Arizona, why should a California sales tax be involved? Why are we suddenly redefining the meaning of local sales tax? Are we now to the point where every state with a local sales tax will also impose tariffs on out-of-state goods? That seems to be the argument here.
- cowkingdeluxe 15y ago
  Wal-Mart and best buy etc, have a lot to gain from this legislation. Aren't they lobbying for it?

flyt 15y ago

yes, all of them.

dablya 15y ago

They probably don't make enough from affiliate traffic to make up for the lost sales if they have to collect the tax.

InclinedPlane 15y ago

Sales tax tends to be 5-10%, affiliate kickbacks tend to be less than that, which means that the increased revenue from affiliate links is in the same ballpark. It would be bad enough if these laws forced amazon to pay sales tax on purchases where the affiliate lived in the same state as the purchaser. Instead these laws force amazon to pay sales tax on all sales where the purchaser lives in a state where there is a significant number of affiliates. The former would not make business sense (raising prices for a much less significant benefit to affiliates) the latter makes even less sense economically. This isn't Amazon trying to skirt paying sales tax, it's merely amazon making a level headed business decision in the face of irrational and grasping legislation.

Shenglong 15y ago
Beautifully said. However, now Amazon needs to give California a reason to terminate this law while saving face.
jbooth 15y ago
Amazon (or more accurately, the purchaser) should be paying all sales taxes in the state where the purchaser lives, period. Seems cut and dried to me. If the corner store has to run sales tax, Amazon should too. I don't see why a "[adjective] business decision in the face of [adjective] and [adjective] legislation" is in any way different from "skirt paying sales tax".
- modoc 15y ago
  Because as you say, it's actually the purchaser who needs to pay the sales tax, legally. Not Amazon.
- jerf 15y ago
  You say it's "cut and dried" at the same time that you are clearly reaching beyond what the laws say. It is not cut and dried as to what one state may make a resident of a completely different state do. Amazon probably is correct, and forcing Amazon to collect sales tax for your state probably is an overreach. It should be pointed out, since so many people forget this in this discussion, that as a resident of a state you are frequently required to pay the sales tax to the state directly in the form of a "use tax". This isn't about consumers owing sales tax, technically the states have already made that happen. It isn't about Amazon "not paying" this tax, because it is the consumer's responsibility at that point. It is about one state forcing an entity not in its jurisdiction to do something for the convenience (and little more) of that state. Amazon's got a pretty strong case here; any principle that makes this compulsion legal is likely to have numerous and manifold "unanticipated results" beyond merely getting Amazon to collect tax.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    Uh, who brought in residents of different states? California residents should be paying the California sales tax on things they buy, and the state has a right to make that happen. Nobody's talking about forcing Colorado residents to do anything. I agree that they should find a way to make it a reasonable burden for Amazon to collect that information, but if local retailers have to collect and Amazon doesn't, that seems unfair and noncompetitive.
    - InclinedPlane 15y ago
      So if an amazon customer living in California buys an item that is fulfilled from Arizona, why should a California sales tax be involved? Why are we suddenly redefining the meaning of local sales tax? Are we now to the point where every state with a local sales tax will also impose tariffs on out-of-state goods? That seems to be the argument here.
cowkingdeluxe 15y ago
Wal-Mart and best buy etc, have a lot to gain from this legislation. Aren't they lobbying for it?