4 ms·
You can't be serious. It's not really the affiliates that make the difference here -- it's all of Amazon's operations in CA. We're all futurists here except wh
by leot 15y ago
You can't be serious. It's not really the affiliates that make the difference here -- it's all of Amazon's operations in CA.
We're all futurists here except when that means losing affiliate revenue and/or no longer having a tax dodge. It's just a matter of time before there's uniformity between the online and brick and mortar worlds, and Amazon is simply seeking delay. Per Sinclair "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
- gergles 15y agoWhat operations in CA? (Almost) Everything I purchase from Amazon comes from Nevada. And no, Lab126/A9/their other affiliates don't count, as they are not the company selling you the product.
- leot 15y agoNo, you're right, they're the shell companies designed to avoid asking customers to pay CA sales tax. Virtual presence is fun until it means you have to start competing on a level playing field. The affiliate program might be the strongest legal argument for in-state presence, but it's far from the only one. Apart from the subsidiaries, there's also the more than $3 billion they get from CA residents. I think everyone here should have to disclose competing interests on this topic: full disclosure: I work for a company (part time) that makes most of its money from Amazon affiliate revenue (but I personally am not taking Amazon's threats very seriously).
- meow 15y agoThey can't be compared to shell companies which in general are fully owned. You can probably compare them to advertising agencies.
- DanLivesHere 15y agoYou're focusing way too much on the outcome here and not at all on the process. If you want Amazon to be taxed (which I'm fine with), it should be done federally or consistent with how every other company is treated. Amazon is being singled out here because they're so big. There are two possible paths here: (1) Amazon continues to be singled out and/or (2) Other companies also get dinged (wrongly) in this way. Option (2) is really, really bad, especially for small businesses and startups. You don't want to all of a sudden have a successful brick and mortar spice business in New Hampshire and find out, holy cow, you're in arrears for lack of tax payments in California! That'd be a business-killer. The process matters.