Amazon Cuts Off North Carolina Affiliates 411
Amazon.com has reportedly cut off all affiliates in North Carolina as a preemptive response to the sales tax change being pushed through the state legislature. The Seattle-based online retailer warned affiliates last week that such a move might be necessary, but the early shutoff seems to be a move in hopes of swaying opinion on the proposed legislation. "Local affiliates say they were 'blind-sided' by the company's action. 'I got this e-mail at 4:30 this morning,' said James Barrett, a technology consultant from Winston-Salem. 'It wasn't saying your account will be shut down. It said it is shut down. That just blew me up right there.' Barrett said that he is frustrated at lawmakers for considering the tax, but equally aggravated with Amazon. 'They're trying to tick off all their associates and get them to call down to Raleigh,' Barrett said. 'I think that is pretty tacky. That's not the way to use people who are referring business to your business.'"
That's the real meaning of "voting with your feet" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Too bad it has to be that way, but it is much easier to kill a bill than to kill the resultant law. I hope NC's (attempted) money grab was worth it.
Re:That's the real meaning of "voting with your fe (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it is unfortunate that N.C. sellers had to suffer for it, but I have to agree with Amazon's action on this. At every turn, government at all levels seek more and more money rather than taking a hard look at where they are spending it. Ultimately, I believe, they simply want more money to vote themselves higher pay and to return favors of their campaign donors. I wish there were a better way to run government. I vaguely recall one or more SciFi movies in the past where a city became a business or something to that end... the prospect was frightening, but I have to wonder if such a project were applied properly, if it wouldn't be run more efficiently. One problem with current styles of government is that there is little to no incentive to save money or to use it wisely. They have no profit motive and clearly no personal integrity or desire to serve motives. So I have to wonder, what motives would cause governments at local, state and even federal levels to deliver "good service" to the people at the lowest cost possible?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They have no profit motive and clearly no personal integrity or desire to serve motives.
Yes, clearly, all politicians lack personal integrity -- and if they had a profit motive they would be full of integrity. </sarcasm>
At every turn, government at all levels seek more and more money rather than taking a hard look at where they are spending it.
Wait, I thought they had no profit motive...
Perhaps North Carolina is upset because local business are closing due to the tax disparity? Amazon sneaks in as an interstate institution, and they know that if residents have to pay tax in addition to shipping, their customers will be more likely to patronize local business. The same places that provide property tax and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps North Carolina is upset because local business are closing due to the tax disparity?
Chicago infamously addressed an automobile tax disparity by forcing suburban car dealerships to collect City taxes. City dwellers could no longer escape the inordinate tax by buying in the suburbs; Chicago argued that place of residence, not place of purchase, determined the sales tax. Except, that is, for suburban dwellers who might have bought a car in the city. For them, it was the other way around. Now they're trying the same thing with *all* car rentals in the entire 6-county suburban area. (They *migh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Granting all your arguments for the sake of argument, what would be the limiting factor against this annexing power? In my experience, the further the power center gets away from the individual, the less responsive it is to individual needs. It may be that this is a good thing in your view... that the individual should subordinate his or her individual needs to the needs of society at large. In the current state of affairs, the limiting factor is the inconvenience of moving; if a city's fiscal penalties to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How and why is Amazon supposed to be treated differently than say, Walmart?
Walmart seems to be able to handle the tax issue, why is it Amazon can't do the same?
Re:That's the real meaning of "voting with your fe (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Usually, it comes down to the question of who has more guns.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's been tried many times. People always ignore it until it's too late. By actively and immediately halting business, you can bet the affiliates will raise hell in a timely fashion.
Re:That's the real meaning of "voting with your fe (Score:5, Interesting)
"Threatening" government with pulling out is often weak and empty and used far too often. Eventually, with all the posturing that goes on, someone has to make a move that is exact and meaningful. Amazon made a move rather than attempt to actually "play" politics through threats and posturing. So I have to disagree. Amazon is not playing politics. Surely they have taken into account that they would alienate some people in N.C. but they have to prove they are serious.
Amazon isn't sending lobbyists with bags of cash. Amazon isn't asking sellers to plea to the government. Doing so would, in fact, be playing politics. By making a decisive and definitive action, they are make their statement in the only clean and honest way possible. Begging and threatening politicians is only playing their game. To withdraw is the only way... unless you can think of another?
Undoing a law after it has passed is a good deal harder than preventing it from passing. The DMCA seems to be sticking around regardless of how frequently it is abused and how much it harms the people. It's a bad and unpopular law that could only have been passed in the way it was (subversively) and it's not going away. Amazon is speaking not only to N.C., but to every state of the union. Taxing the internet is a very bad idea just as a state seizing a domain name because the operators who do not operate in the same state is violating that state's law is a bad idea. States should never exceed their borders and yet attempt to do so at every opportunity.
Re:That's the real meaning of "voting with your fe (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, Amazon probably needed to demonstrate how serious they were, or NC might well have called their "bluff," leaving the affiliates out in the cold for much longer, if not permanently. Once some government erects a new law / regulation / tax / bureaucracy / program, it's harder to get rid of than mildew.
In fact, these things really are quite like an aggressive mildew. Do nothing, and they grow, advance, and encroach on your clean space. Work really really diligently and consistently, and you can sometimes beat them back to manageable levels. But get a little lazy once or twice, and boom... they're ba-ack, worse than ever.
If Amazon had merely warned their affiliates, there would be a big "yeah, right" factor on the affiliates' parts, and a big "yeah, right" factor on the legislators' parts. The tax might well pass, and Amazon's negotiating position would become that much weaker. Amazon *needs* big numbers of pissed off people -- really pissed off right this minute people -- to beat this thing. People who are merely imagining being pissed off in some potential future just don't act. Legislators need to see a thunderstorm, not a possible drizzle advisory; a storm of phone calls, not a flurry of tweets and a new Facebook group called "stop the tax."
With private economies shrinking but public spending expanding most everywhere, we are going to see more egregious tax grab strategies popping up more and more often over the coming months and years. The ones who don't get their pockets picked clean will be the ones who get brutal, or have someone get brutal on their behalf as Amazon did in this case.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Once some government erects a new law / regulation / tax / bureaucracy / program, it's harder to get rid of than mildew.
It's true, I have often found it takes a lot more Lysol to kill a legislator than it does to kill mildew.
Re:That's the real meaning of "voting with your fe (Score:5, Funny)
I think this warrants extensive testing just to be sure.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
amazon has feet?
Yes. They are unde-feet-ed.
Re:That's the real meaning of "voting with your fe (Score:5, Funny)
Well, of course [amazon.com]. They sell everything [amazon.com].
Re:That's the real meaning of "voting with your fe (Score:4, Funny)
amazon has feet? are they for sale?
They were, but they've been soled.
Re:That's the real meaning of "voting with your fe (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I think it's a great tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
... even if it is a bit assholeish. It sends a loud and clear message to the NC government that the legislation will hurt local businesses.
Re:Actually, I think it's a great tactic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Actually, I think it's a great tactic (Score:5, Funny)
Clinton balanced the budget too.
Re:Actually, I think it's a great tactic (Score:5, Informative)
We're seeing more and more of this retaliation.
Green Day recently declined to make a censored version of their album to meet Wal*Mart's demands. Wal*Mart thought that they could strong-arm anyone into making an non-explicit version. But lost out, because the album is doing quitewellthankyouverymuch.
On a more historical note, the founders of this great nation realized that smuggling was a good thing. As taxes became oppressive, the more reason there was for smuggling. They saw it as a great balancing factor. They state had to choose to keep the taxes low, or let a larger amount go untaxed, in addition to a drop in sales, like they are seeing with the new tobacco taxes.
The current government is advantaged because of electronic record keeping, where some SQL statement can spot discrepancies for additional investigation.
But there is no reason why the governments should have license to grow when its supporting economy just dropped 20%. To argue otherwise is to argue that you can tax a nation into prosperity, or that you can lift yourself up by your boot straps.
I applaud Amazon for having gravitas. I also wish the best for those affiliates in NC. Hopefully they will speak up and fix the taxation, or NC will learn to go without.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, currently in NC businesses which sell directly to NC residents collect sales tax, but NC businesses which sell to NC residents via Amazon don't. Whether or not you agree with NC's proposal, there are more factors here which I don't think you've considered.
the founders of this great nation realized that smuggling was a good thing
To the contrary, the United States was set up as a nation of laws and with the assumption that there would be taxes. There's nothing that excuses smugglers from the legal system.
But there is no reason why the governments should have license to grow when its supporting economy just dropped 20%.
Firstly, the proposed change in no way "grows" the government. It is
Re:Actually, I think it's a great tactic (Score:4, Insightful)
> What is the state to do?
Well, one thing they could do is create rainy-day funds during times of prosperity instead of growing the government a corresponding amount. Some states do this, but I think most don't bother, because a big lump of cash sitting there is too much of a temptation to spend. And investing the rainy day funds raises the risk of being wiped out in the same downturn that the funds were for.
Regarding maintaining roads, at least in my state that's the first thing they cut out of the budget in a downturn. Speaking as someone who recently had a $3,000 insurance claim for damage done to my vehicle by a really deep pothole downtown.
But back to the question above, "what is the state to do?", it is a conundrum, because increased taxes in a downturn invariably stalls recovery, putting the government in an unwelcome position -- charity now, or prosperity later? The additional cost of the taxes to pay John Q. Unemployed's extended unemployment benefits may have been the money the company needed to hire him. Or worse, it may be the impetus for the company to move to a more business-friendly state, causing the jobs to disappear forever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Minimize the impact of fluctuations in revenue by minimizing government services and expenditures.
Solve the problem of bureaucracy ("the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy") and apply the fix to every state and local government.
The state should be fiscally prudent so that it is able to borrow money to make it through temporary tough times. Then, since it is fiscally prudent, it will be able to pay that debt off during good times.
Obviously n
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So just curious, as more and more companies do like Amazon and more and more purchases are made from out of state due to this sort of web service ...
What do you think states should do to deal with the lost revenue.
Amazon seems to have no problem taking money from people in North Carolina. I don't see them paying their own state any taxes on those sales.
Its not like they don't just pass sales tax along to the customer like every other business ANYWAY.
Its not like Amazon itself is paying the taxes to NC.
Don'
Re:Actually, I think it's a great tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. Amazon is losing sales on this too, so it's not like they're just screwing the little guy. They're putting their money where their mouth is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What message is that?
Is that the message you're referring to?
Amazon doesn't have the guts to stop selling to NC itself, that would cost them too much money, they just want to hurt the little guys. You know, the affiliates they use as cannon fodder on a regular basis?
Hopefully NC will amend the law to require anyone shipping a product into the state to collect sales tax on the sale and distributed it to the state. Of c
They Had Warning (Score:5, Informative)
Local affiliates say they were "blind-sided" by the company's action.
I'm sorry, sir, I normally restrict myself to civil language but you are so full of shit.
I don't even live in North Carolina and recalled reading about 'warning' letters sent to you [accountingweb.com]. Maybe you should open up your e-mails from June 17-18:
We regret to inform you that the North Carolina state legislature (the General Assembly) appears ready to enact an unconstitutional tax collection scheme that would leave Amazon.com little choice but to end its relationships with North Carolina-based Associates. You are receiving this e-mail because our records indicate that you are an Amazon Associate and resident of North Carolina.
Please note that this is not an immediate termination notice and you are still a valued participant in the Associates Program. All referral fees earned on qualified traffic will continue to be paid as planned.
But because the new law is drafted to go into effect once enacted -- which could happen in the next two weeks -- we will have to terminate the participation of all North Carolina residents in the Amazon Associates program on or before that same day. After the termination day, we will no longer pay any referral fees for customers referred to Amazon.com or Endless.com nor will we accept new applications for the Associates program from North Carolina residents.
The unfortunate consequences of this legislation on North Carolina residents like you were explained in detail to key senators and representatives in Raleigh, including the leadership of the Senate, House, and both chambers' finance committees. Other states, including Maryland, Minnesota, and Tennessee, considered nearly identical schemes, but rejected these proposals largely because of the adverse impact on their states' residents.
The North Carolina General Assembly's website is www.ncleg.net and additional information may be obtained from the Performance Marketing Alliance at www.performancemarketingalliance.com. We thank you for being part of the Amazon Associates program, and we will apprise you of the General Assembly's action on this matter.
Sincerely,
Amazon.com
You were warned! Tell us, James Barrett, how many letters did you sent to your representatives demanding they strike down this unconstitutional tax?
Yes, it came early. But you were warned. Unwittingly operating for one day could set Amazon back thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars. They tried blocking it with litigation in New York and they lost. Don't get made at them for playing it safe, you have no one to blame but your elected officials.
Re:They Had Warning (Score:4, Informative)
North Carolina state legislature (the General Assembly) appears ready to enact an unconstitutional tax collection scheme
For those who don't want to RTFA:
The tax provision that Amazon objects to would apply sales tax to purchases made through such click through transactions from Web sites run by affiliates based in North Carolina.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
blindsided? (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Time for the referral businesses in NC to relocate. Or close up shop. We'd be happy to have them (and their income & property tax revenues) here in NJ.
Of course, now it's only a matter of time before most states have similar laws. Then it'll be time for these businesses to relocate to the Cayman Islands.
Re:blindsided? (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Time for the referral businesses in NC to relocate. Or close up shop. We'd be happy to have them (and their income & property tax revenues) here in NJ.
Or they could setup a proxy LLC in Delaware [wikipedia.org] through a registered agent [delaware.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
There are many many thousands of corporations registered in DE for business purposes, but don't think for a second that those corporations are not required to file and pay sales taxes in the states where they have a physical presence.
And don't try to evade sales taxes that way either -- you'll either get nailed and have to pay fines and interest (or even get prosecuted for willful tax evasion), or at the ver
Re: (Score:2)
Just think how much nicer NJ would be if people were valued for their humanity rather than just as sources of "income & property tax revenues". If these people needed a hint to avoid New Jersey, your post certainly provided it. Of course, they could have looked around to find that New Jersey has the worst business climate of any state in the US [heartland.org].
My state (Minnesota) isn't very good either, but it beats New Jersey. I hope to move to an even better state soon.
Re:blindsided? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the heartland.org article? It doesn't say that "New Jersey has the worst business climate," it says that "New Jersey has the worst business TAX climate."
Big difference. This statement is based primarily on the breadth of the sales tax base.
NJ doesn't tax toilet paper, food, or clothing. This places more of a tax burden on people buying TVs and cars, and less on people buying things like cereal for their kids. If that means NJ has a bad business tax climate, so what?
Honestly, I'd rather pay 7% f
Re:blindsided? (Score:4, Insightful)
Trouble is...most of those people will still buy TV's first, and then complain they can't feel their kids.
Re:blindsided? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What should he have said? "People who can't afford to buy TVs?" When those are the people you're talking about, it's easier to say "those people." There's no reason to bring your insecurities or sensitivities into this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just how could I value these people for their humanity, when I have no idea if they are selfish twats or if they are decent human beings? The only thing I can judge them on, from the information available to me, is their monetary value to the people who live in NJ. They could be rapists or worse, for all we know.
And as for NJ having a bad business climate... s
Re: (Score:2)
If you lived in NJ for 4 years and didn't explore any of it... well, your loss.
I sure hope you didn't live in NE NJ, SW NJ, or the shore... if you did live in one of those cultural wastelands, I pity you.
Re: (Score:2)
[quote]
2. Time for the referral businesses in NC to relocate. Or close up shop. We'd be happy to have them (and their income & property tax revenues) here in NJ.
[/quote]
Given the brutal property and income tax situation in New Jersey, they'd be better off moving a few miles to South Carolina.
I'm from New Jersey, lived in both Carolinas, and retired in SC so I get to keep more of my income. :)
The only way to make sure (Score:5, Informative)
is by biting them where it hurts: their pockets. You can add all the sales tax on out-of-state purchases you want (whether that is federally allowed -- I'm not sure), if you don't sell anything, you don't have anything to tax so revenue will remain 0.
They probably saw what happened in NY and they don't want it to happen everywhere. Amazon decided to add tax to NY purchases and me and a lot of other people stopped purchasing from them because other stores (like NewEgg, TigerDirect and Geeks) were undercutting them by about 8%. Even though my organization is tax exempt I don't purchase at Amazon simply because they don't have the provision for me to state that I am tax exempt.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not zero, it's a negative amount, because these businesses will then stop paying a bunch of taxes that they are already burdened with.
It's not tacky (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly the way to use people who are referring business to your business. The only thing that motivates a business "relationship" is the exchange of value. If the proposed law was going to cause this change anyway, making it early as an example is the way to get people to "call down to Raleigh."
not tacky (Score:5, Insightful)
They're trying to tick off all their associates and get them to call down to Raleigh,' Barrett said. 'I think that is pretty tacky.
Sounds like an excellent way to motivate your local associates to get their arses over to the capital and ride their representatives. There's not a great deal Amazon can do directly to fix this, they have to rely on their local affiliates to keep the local conditions amicable to their business. If the locals aren't moving, then it's time to light a fire under them.
Got their attention too didn't it? Sounds like it's working as intended to me...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh? They couldn't boycott NC themselves?
So its good for them that they go ahead and push it off to someone else, but they don't take a hit themselves?
'I'm not going to let you sell my stuff because your state did something bad sorry it hurts you, by the way, I don't really want to get hurt myself, so I'm going to keep selling all day long and continue making money while you don't.'
Are you serious? Don't give me this bullshit like Amazon is doing t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh? They couldn't boycott NC themselves?
Why are you advocating the nuclear option? This is an incremental escalation, and a focused response to the specific issue. Amazon would consider boycotting NC if NC made a credible play at their direct sales. NC hasn't, and NC can't.
Good Lord, why don't you just suggest Amazon hire ninja assassins to off NC's legislature? That's about as over-the-top.
So its good for them that they go ahead and push it off to someone else, but they don't take a hit themselves?
They
good for amazon! (Score:5, Insightful)
A question for any legal geeks (Score:4, Interesting)
Can a company move to a US territory and still get all the perks ?
i.e. Puerto Rico ?
Unfair? (Score:5, Insightful)
The legislator claims it's not fair that brick and mortar stores collect sales tax and Amazon doesn't. I say the brick and mortar collects taxes according to ONE tax structure in ONE place. What's fair about an out of state retailer having to understand potentially thousands of sales tax structures in many different combinations? Not to mention then needing to keep books on thousands of accounts to make sure the various state and local tax collectors get said taxes.
Unless and until the various legislatures are willing to get together on a simple clearing house to make it easy for retailers to figure out how much to collect and where to send it, they have little choice but to not do business in places that insist on it.
NC is already proving that such questions could be hard to answer. Whose taxes do we collect, the billing address? the ship to address? The address where the affiliate's server is located? NO! We must collect for the physical address of the person who owns the affiliate site. At least this week. No doubt the eventual answer (at least the one legislators will want) is ALL OF THE ABOVE AND MORE! In all different amounts with a whole table full of thresholds, percentages, and exceptions. OH, and different addresses to send the checks to with different required documentation and forms to fill out. Each and every one of them will claim that their tax is very simple and effortless to collect. None will recognize that the sheer volume and lack of standardization makes the matter impossible.
What about NY? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From what I understand the proposed NC law actually says that anything sold to anyone via an NC affiliate link would need to be taxed. So if someone lived in PA and bought something from Amazon, if they went through a NC affiliate link, it would be taxed by NC. This is not on
Re:What about NY? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's ridiculous is that this law doesn't seem to tax based on the location of the seller or the buyer, but instead on the location of the referrer. Sales tax is supposed to be a tax on the buyer, and it just happens to be the responsibility of the seller to collect it. So NC is trying to charge a sales tax of a buyer that isn't a resident.
It might sound sensible to take a cut of that referral money (since that's the party that's in state), but they're already taxing that by charging income tax to the referrer.
Re:What about NY? JUST DO IT! (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe now that they've found their manhood again they will cut off NY once the legal challenges play out. I'd like to see it happen long enough to stop this from spreading any further. States are copycats about this kind of crap.
I live in NC (Score:2)
Also: the way to fix it isn't talking to a media outlet, it is talking to someone in Raleigh. (no, not a media outlet in Raleigh).
Go For It Amazon (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes I'm sorry that people are getting hurt along the way with this, but go out there and get your state back in order once more and this won't be happening.
Disclaimer 1: I sell on Amazon and I'm still all for this.
Disclaimer 2: I lived in California and breathed that air every day.
No, it's this way... (Score:2)
No, that's not correct. The early shutoff is to show that Amazon is truly serious about this and not just blowing smoke. There is now no doubt that Amazon isn't bluffing. NC will get no tax money from them.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Bravo North Carolina. (Score:4, Insightful)
>Bravo to North Carolina for calling these online retailers to be responsible.
Hope they enjoy no Amazon-related resellers operating in their state.
Taxes are how states compete for business. Raise taxes on a business that can operate anywhere else and avoid the tax, guess what? They are leaving town.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you think a company looks at the arts culture before looking at the local tax structure then you're delusional.
Imagine a CEO in front of a meeting of shareholders, and they're asking him why all of their dividends just fell. His answer is because he wanted to move his company into a state with a "thriving arts culture", even though he's now paying twice as much to do business there. How much are his shareholders going to care about the arts culture in a city they don't live in?
Here's a question: why ar
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any idea what a nightmare it would be for a small online retailer if they had to figure out what sales tax to charge on every transaction in every locality in the country.
Sounds like a simple change requiring a couple new database tables linking postal code, tax rates and exemption booleans to product ID, a couple of administrative web pages to modify the data and view a tally of taxed items being sold, and a few changes to the cart checkout to add/display the tax amount. In fact, much of this
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of services and software available that handles this almost perfectly. Its 2009, do you think we can't handle a simple address to tax code translation? There are tons of databases that work off street address to tax, and some that even go address -> long/lat -> tax code.
It's not that big a deal and brick and morter businesses that ship have been doing it for ages. Why is it suddenly so difficult for online stores?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you have any idea what a nightmare it would be for a small online retailer if they had to figure out what sales tax to charge on every transaction in every locality in the country.
Well, we have the internet, databases and computers. Automating this would not be difficult at all. States/cities/etc. would submit their tax rates based on GIS data and the federal government could maintain a database searchable by merchants. If the local units don't accurately represent their sales tax rates, then the onus is on them to fix it.
The technology is not a problem here. We can solve that problem. The real problem is a culture of disinvestment in our communities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Are Online Retailers Going to Contribute or Not (Score:4, Insightful)
The Balkanization of commerce isn't a good thing.
Amazon pays its taxes. Get Amazon to head quarter in your community and then you'll get its tax money.
The overhead of tracking tax codes down to the city level (and keeping up to date) would be overwhelming. The only winning move in this case really is not to play and that's what Amazon did.
Re: (Score:2)
The overhead of tracking tax codes down to the city level (and keeping up to date) would be overwhelming.
They could put them all in an online computer database?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The overhead of tracking tax codes down to the city level (and keeping up to date) would be overwhelming. They could put them all in an online computer database?
So you're offering to make and update this database for free? No? You'd want to be paid to do it? Well how much would that cost? So roughly the amount of money that we make from doing business there or more? Nevermind, it's easier to just not do business there.
Re:Are Online Retailers Going to Contribute or Not (Score:5, Insightful)
OK then, riddle me this: what is the sales tax rate for any address in the US? Note that you can't stop at the city plus ZIP code level, in San Diego County there are ZIP codes that're partly in a city (where city sales tax applies) and partly outside the city (where city sales tax does not apply). Where can a company go to find out authoritatively what the sales tax rate is for a customer address? I don't know of any, and it's just not reasonable to require a company to pay sales tax without giving them a way to find out how much sales tax they're supposed to collect.
Re:Are Online Retailers Going to Contribute or Not (Score:5, Interesting)
OK then, riddle me this: what is the sales tax rate for any address in the US?
I've had to deal with sales tax in both Virginia and North Carolina. The truth of the mater is they don't want you to know what the current tax rate is because they make more money when they audit your small business and apply fines a couple years later.
In Virginia my business was fined for not anticipating our GROSS income correctly. We GROSSED more money one year and because of that we had to pay the tax difference plus a couple thousand in fines. I'm just happy we had a CPA because the tax people where screaming murder until I said they would need to talk with our CPA then they where much nicer...
Small business owner's really can't win by playing by the rules...
Re: (Score:2)
So set up a service bureau to sell the data with online access if necessary. It's not that hard. There are companies that collect and sell medical, drug, legal, and tax law information already. I'm sure Intuit could come up with an add-on service for state and local tax rates based on address.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is to exempt really small businesses, but they don't want people to try to run 1000 small businesses that make less than $1000 each.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where can a company go to find out authoritatively what the sales tax rate is for a customer address?
Wouldn't it be the computer's address rather than the customer's address?
If I go to the town next door and buy coffee, I pay 1% extra sales tax. Why can't people over there come to my house and use my computer (with their account) and get a lower sales tax rate?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Right, because it's not bad enough that the affiliates in North Carolina are already taxed on their earnings, but now they have to be taxed on the sales they refer to Amazon? You're talking taxing the same people three times on every sale (Local, State, and Affiliate). Let's not mention the bigger affiliates that are taxed 5 times (2x corporate earnings taxes, IRS personal, State personal, Affiliate)
Oh, and yes, the IRS and states tax the shit out of individuals in business. I don't know where people get th
Re: (Score:2)
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Without any kind of business expenses, I would be taxed 89% on every dollar I made. eighty. nine. fucking. percent.
Bullshit. If that were true, there would be no employers in NC.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Without any kind of business expenses, I would be taxed 89% on every dollar I made. eighty. nine. fucking. percent.
I call bullshit. Seriously. I've worked for a number of small companies, and I've never seen any loading or tax liability anywhere near that. What the hell are you doing wrong to get to 89% (my guess? He's calculating it horribly wrong).
Really, I would really like to know, because I would love to rally against it like nobody's business, but I just can't even come close to conjuring up a scenario where 89% is the actual tax liability.
Re:Are Online Retailers Going to Contribute or Not (Score:3, Funny)
I think you need to make your sarcasm a bit more obvious. Someone might get the impression that you actually agreed with NC on this issue. That would, of course, be utterly ridiculous--but given the kinds of people one meets online it's hard to be certain, and not every detects sarcasm well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"The fact is, online retailers have been leeching off communities for far too long. They make use of the infrastructure these communities provide but use tax evasion to make sure they don't contribute to its upkeep."
What infrastructure is Washington based Amazon using in North Carolina?
That's the rub. They aren't.
That is the whole point behind "No Nexus = no tax"
Re:Are Online Retailers Going to Contribute or Not (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Would you want to liable for a regular patron that contracted lung cancer after breathing smoke in your establishment?
I would certainly hope that it isn't possible to incur liability for exposure to conditions the customer is fully aware of before walking in the door. Subjecting customers to unexpected or hidden risk would be one thing, but when someone goes into a place of business knowing in advance that they'll be exposed to second-hand smoke the responsibility for any potential consequences is theirs alone. A warning sign for new customers might be in order--though it would be difficult to argue that any significant da
Re:While your at it...... (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter whether the person in question is a customer, employee, or visiting dignitary. The only criteria that matters is that they entered the property willingly, knowing the conditions. That is as true for employees as it is for customers.
That fact that the business in your anecdote settled doesn't mean they would have been found liable in court--or that they were actually liable, which isn't always the same thing. The customer was liable, if anyone, for breaking the glass and thus creating the situation. However, it doesn't look good for employees to sue customers even when doing so would be justified, so I'm not particularly surprised that the employer settled the matter itself as an act of goodwill.
Re:While your at it...... (Score:5, Insightful)
A better example than a patron would be an employee - the vast majority of bars i've frequented left their employees in situations where the had no choice but to breathe in second hand smoke. I know the free-market extremists will disagree, but i think your employer should be responsible for a safe working environment.
I certainly know of someone who got a nasty laceration in his foot from broken glass from a customer spill. The bar settled and covered his medical costs.
That's certainly a different situation than being exposed to second hand smoke, though. If you apply to work at a bar/restaurant where smoking is allowed (which you could easily tell when you were picking up your application), I think you should expect that you'll be around second hand smoke and if that is objectionable - choose not to work there! If you object to working outside in the heat, perhaps you shouldn't apply for a construction job in California - it's not the hiring construction companies job to provide a portable air conditioning unit for you. If you object to working with children - you should probably not try to become a second grade teacher. If you object to working around alcohol - you should not apply to a liquor store. If you object to working around smoke, you should choose not to work at a place WHERE PEOPLE FREQUENTLY SMOKE. You are not entitled to work at whatever job you want with whatever conditions you want, no one owes you the type of job you dream of.
Re: (Score:2)
True, though working in the heat (assuming you are properly hydrated and sunscreened) doesn't have particular long term health consequences.
Should it be acceptable to hire people who'll be exposed to radioactivity in doses that we know stand some reasonable chance of causing cancer?
Maybe the US Radium Corporation has a position for you in their legal department.
Re: (Score:2)
What about your employees? They spend a fairly significant portion of your day in a smoke filled room.
I have a hell of a lot more sympathy for the places that structured their business around separately ventilated spaces that employees didn't have to enter, but most bars and restaurants weren't proactive.
Re: (Score:2)
also you can cut down the problem some if you put the smoking section near the air returns (i think that the kitchen is effectively negative pressure and the upper floors of a multistory setup should also be good)
note IANAHVACE please consult one as required
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:While your at it...... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:While your at it...... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Excuse? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure people in NC would agree to pay rather than stop doing business. There is something fishy in this case.
The "something fishy" is that NC wants to tax Amazon--not the local associates--as if they had a presence in the state, based on their relationships with local associates (who are undoubtedly already paying NC taxes). Ergo, Amazon is severing its NC-based associate relationships to avoid any appearance of a taxable in-state presence.
I doubt that these taxes on out-of-state businesses are even remotely Constitutional, but I don't blame Amazon for playing it safe.
Re: (Score:2)
The "something fishy" is that NC wants to tax Amazon--not the local associates--as if they had a presence in the state...
The issue is somewhat tricky, because the local associates are using Amazon as a sales agent and using them to avoid sales taxes that other local businesses pay, giving them an unfair advantage. There is a basic fairness issue here (which I'm sure that local businesses without a web presence are pushing).
Re: (Score:2)
Beware the looters.
NC has no right to the money, but are going to grab it anyways. Get the businesses to come to your state, not chase them away. Has no state learned California's lesson?
Re: (Score:2)
I think Michigan is a more apt example.