Amazon will end affiliate program in California if new law passes

Post by joezydeco » Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 3:49 AM UTC

emmett wrote: post #140

mkramlich wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Amazon has physical buildings in Texas, and Amazon disagrees with that state's position that they have a physical presence in Texas. Only a lawyer could argue for such a twisted interpretation of reality with a straight face.

Amazon owns a company that has physical buildings in Texas, and disagrees as to whether that constitutes a tax nexus or not. Pretty easy to argue with a straight face! Tax law is a matter of technicality, not "does it seem about right".

Post by olalonde » Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 4:18 AM UTC

guelo wrote: post #135

T-hawk wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Politicians and governments are, by and large, oblivious to the fact that laws induce behavioral changes. Like extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, then somehow being surprised when the rate increases of people staying on unemployment rather than finding jobs. Or creating a tax credit for low-income families who have children, then being surprised when the low-income birth rate increases. In the politici…

> extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks ... people staying on unemployment rather than finding jobs > tax credit for low-income families who have children ... low-income birth rate increases Citations please

Post by cheez » Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 4:48 AM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #94

cheez wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yup. Politicians and governments are, by and large, oblivious to the fact that laws induce behavioral changes. Come on. Politicians are some of the smartest people in the society. Do you really think they are oblivious or do you think they're just looking out for #1?

> Politicians are some of the smartest people in the society. [citation needed] Not that I necessarily disagree, mind you; nor do I want to drag the whole social vs. whatever we call it now intelligence.

Post by zcid » Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 5:07 AM UTC

mkramlich wrote: post #139

_delirium wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas is trying to go after Amazon shell companies; I'm not sure if California has tried that route. In Texas, there are two companies involved: Amazon.com.kydc, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc. The sole business of the former is to operate physical facilities, some of which are in Texas, and which provide warehousing and shipment of books for the latter. Texas argues that this constitutes Amazon…

So Amazon has physical buildings in Texas, and Amazon disagrees with that state's position that they have a physical presence in Texas. Only a lawyer could argue for such a twisted interpretation of reality with a straight face.

Post by nathos » Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 6:11 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #11

Some important background on this. At issue here is sales tax. By state law, the tax is owed by the citizens to the state no matter where they make the purchase. To make enforcement easier, the tax is supposed to be collected by businesses. In theory the tax is owed regardless, but as a practical matter when businesses do not collect the tax, customers don't volunteer the information and the state loses revenue. This…