Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, March 17, 2010
Books Amazon's Slow Retreat
Posted by Paul Constant on Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:36 PM
MobyLives says that Amazon.com is threatening to stop listing almost 2,000 Connecticut businesses on its site if the mean ol' Connecticut legislature tries to make Amazon pay state sales tax.
“If Connecticut were to enact RB 5481, Amazon and presumably dozens of other out-of-state retailers would simply sever affiliate advertising relationships with Connecticut residents,” Paul Misener, Amazon’s vice president for global public policy, wrote in testimony submitted to the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee.
If Amazon goes through with it, Connecticut will be the 4th state—after North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Colorado—where Amazon has pulled this gambit. MobyLives points out that they have 46 states to go.
2
The bill got postponed, but has Amazon spoke regarding California yet? Looking to the future, what will retailers in South Dakota offer?
3
They're going to lose. Every state is basically fucked for budget and is going after any shred of revenue they can get their hands on. How long can Amazon hold out? 10 states? 30 states? Can they lose California? Texas? Florida?
None of these legislatures give two shits whether their constituents can buy from Amazon or not--as long as they get their cut.
None of these legislatures give two shits whether their constituents can buy from Amazon or not--as long as they get their cut.
4
Good point, except
1) They already pay sales tax in Washington
2) Alaska, Deleware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon don't have a sales tax.
So there are really only 40 states to go
1) They already pay sales tax in Washington
2) Alaska, Deleware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon don't have a sales tax.
So there are really only 40 states to go
5
Too late, Amazon. It looks like the tax-internet-sales-monster has been set in motion. Given that every state in the country is bleeding red ink, you will never be able to stop the momentum of this now.
7
Amazon is not going to "stop listing almost 2,000 Connecticut businesses on its site". If this goes through, Amazon is going to stop paying affiliate referral fees to residents of Connecticut who drive traffic to the site.
8
Despite being unregistered, dept. of corections (#7) is correct. There are no "listings" on the site. These are the affiliate links that stay-at-home bloggers put on their pages. When someone clicks through and buys something, the blogger gets a referral cut. They'll stop getting these cuts now.
I know we can always hate on the Seattle hipster to hate on any business, no matter if it is local, successful enough to spread its influence beyond this tiny city. But can you at least be correct/rational about it next time?
What rationale does a STATE have to tax a business with no physical presence in said state? This is interstate commerce, which is a federal matter.
This doesn't even make sense. But for it to, Paul would have to understand something other than comic books.
I know we can always hate on the Seattle hipster to hate on any business, no matter if it is local, successful enough to spread its influence beyond this tiny city. But can you at least be correct/rational about it next time?
What rationale does a STATE have to tax a business with no physical presence in said state? This is interstate commerce, which is a federal matter.
This doesn't even make sense. But for it to, Paul would have to understand something other than comic books.
10
@8: I think you're confusing this with earlier Amazon practices. It sounds like Colorado was trying to pass a law which would consider affiliate websites based in Colorado as a physical presence for Amazon itself (which is really pretty reasonable).
The conclusion (no more affiliate sites getting their cuts) is accurate. I don't buy your other statement, though: A person purchasing a listing from a Colorado company should be taxed on that sale, even if the item ends up being delivered from Amazon.
The conclusion (no more affiliate sites getting their cuts) is accurate. I don't buy your other statement, though: A person purchasing a listing from a Colorado company should be taxed on that sale, even if the item ends up being delivered from Amazon.
11
@10: I don't think @8 is confusing anything.
Paul apparently does not understand the situation at all.
Amazon could stop paying all affiliates in every state and the experience of shopping on the site would be the same. You just might see fewer tagged links in blogs, etc., and people wouldn't spam comments and forums with tagged links in hopes of receiving referral fees.
Paul apparently does not understand the situation at all.
Amazon could stop paying all affiliates in every state and the experience of shopping on the site would be the same. You just might see fewer tagged links in blogs, etc., and people wouldn't spam comments and forums with tagged links in hopes of receiving referral fees.
13
This is the closest similar scenario:
A dude in Connecticut uses Google AdWords. This establishes a physical presence for Google in CT. Some chick there buys a Nexus One from them online and the state taxes her.
Fair?
A dude in Connecticut uses Google AdWords. This establishes a physical presence for Google in CT. Some chick there buys a Nexus One from them online and the state taxes her.
Fair?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (13) RSS