Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Terminates Illinois Affiliates

directmatchmedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 94 posts

Re: Amazon Terminates Illinois Affiliates

#81

Post by sharth »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #73
tsycho wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, to be fair to the physical retailers, all online retailers should pay sales tax since you are giving them a 10% pricing advantage otherwise. Amazon (and others) are exploiting a tax loophole, and the state governments are trying to stop that. They should, however, make such rules for all retailers, and not target Amazon specifically (I am not sure if they are doing so, but the parent comment makes it seem like…

You're making a big assumption, that it's Amazon that's exploiting a loophole, rather than the the State being exploitative. You're assuming that the State has some inherent right to grab whatever money it can get its hands on. Can you explain why a retailer that's not in the state ought to be on the hook for these taxes? In other words, rather than simply assuming that states have essentially unlimited authority to…

Technically, it's the customer who is cheating the state. If I was to buy a product on amazon and not pay sales tax on it, I am supposed to pay a use tax on it at the end of the year.

Re: Amazon Terminates Illinois Affiliates

#82

Post by orblivion »

acangiano wrote: post #69
orblivion wrote: post #25

I don't suppose having your LLC based out of state is going to save you here is it?

Actually that should do the trick. Your company earns the commissions, and it's not based in Illinois. So you should be gold.

It just worries me that the word "residents" was used. Maybe they assumed that most people reading the notice wouldn't be businesses.

I also reckon that your primary physical business location/address matters. Seems to matter for a lot of things, but I'm just learning about this stuff now.

Re: Amazon Terminates Illinois Affiliates

#83

Post by 3am »

storborg wrote: post #33
erikpukinskis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not always in a different state. If you live in California, you pay sales tax on online purchases pretty much always.

That's because California has tax-hungry laws concerning what defines a "nexus" (a business's presence in the state). It's difficult for many companies to avoid creating a California presence, so they're stuck collecting California sales tax as if they were based there.

I have firsthand experience in online retail and if California is 'tax hungry' for that reason, then every other state in the country is, also. If you have payroll in a state, you collect sales taxes for physical items shipping there.

Re: Amazon Terminates Illinois Affiliates

#84

Post by logicalmind »

dpatru wrote: post #57
shareme wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, read the damn paper..Illinois is bankrupt they are asking for sales taxes to get them out of debt..

Illinois should cut its spending.

Even if that spending is money they are contractually obligated to pay based on contracts they made years ago?

Re: Amazon Terminates Illinois Affiliates

#85

Post by isleyaardvark »

sharth wrote: post #81
CWuestefeld wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making a big assumption, that it's Amazon that's exploiting a loophole, rather than the the State being exploitative. You're assuming that the State has some inherent right to grab whatever money it can get its hands on. Can you explain why a retailer that's not in the state ought to be on the hook for these taxes? In other words, rather than simply assuming that states have essentially unlimited authority to…

Technically, it's the customer who is cheating the state. If I was to buy a product on amazon and not pay sales tax on it, I am supposed to pay a use tax on it at the end of the year.

How so? If I go to New Jersey/France/Mars and buy a candy bar, my home state has no business adding a sales tax. If I write a letter ordering a candy bar delivered from New Jersey/France/Mars, they have no business adding a sales tax. So why tax an order made online from out-of-state? The state is overreaching it's bounds, and that's why Amazon's letter says it is unconstitutional.

Re: Amazon Terminates Illinois Affiliates

#86

Post by repiret »

bambax wrote: post #46
repiret wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Consider the following sequence of examples: 1. I have a store in Oregon, a US state with no sales tax. You live in France, and while on vacation here, you buy a trinket, and carry it home in your luggage. Clearly, I don't have to pay French sales tax. You might owe some import duty when you bring it home. 2. Suppose instead that the trinket is big and heavy, so rather than putting it in your luggage, you…

The vendor never has to "pay" any sales tax: they collect it (my initial wording was wrong). It's the buyer who has to pay sales tax. Being French, if I buy anything anywhere in the world, I owe the French government 20% of the amount of that purchase; if I'm able to hide my purchase in my suitcase, then I'm evading taxes, but I'm certainly never exempt. The crux of the matter is whether Amazon is an "out of state se…

In the United States, the vendor always pays the sales tax. Its customary for the vendor to itemize it separately on their customer's bill and exclude it from listed prices, but its the vendor who has to write a check to the government, the vendor who has reporting obligations to the tax authorities, and the vendor who gets in trouble if it isn't paid. I suspect its the same in France, but I don't really know.

Re: Amazon Terminates Illinois Affiliates

#87

Post by smokeyj »

Vivtek wrote: post #16
glesica wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won't work, Wal-Mart probably already bought everyone in Springfield.

Ha. True. But not writing a letter also won't work. Sooner or later we're going to have to take the damn country back, you know.

You're writing letters and lobbies are writing checks. Who in this equation carries weight?

Re: Amazon Terminates Illinois Affiliates

#88

Post by ultrasaurus »

logicalmind wrote: post #84
dpatru wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illinois should cut its spending.

Even if that spending is money they are contractually obligated to pay based on contracts they made years ago?

Taxpayers aren't prisoners, so there is some maximum rate you can get out of people before they start leaving. I doubt it's the case, but there is a non-zero chance that paying all their obligations are actually impossible.

It's interesting enforcing contracts when my local government can sign a contract that we'll pay pensions for the next 40 years in exchange for a service now (say education), but I can move away after consuming it (or simply never become productive and pay taxes).

Re: Amazon Terminates Illinois Affiliates

#89

Post by logicalmind »

ultrasaurus wrote: post #88
logicalmind wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that spending is money they are contractually obligated to pay based on contracts they made years ago?

Taxpayers aren't prisoners, so there is some maximum rate you can get out of people before they start leaving. I doubt it's the case, but there is a non-zero chance that paying all their obligations are actually impossible. It's interesting enforcing contracts when my local government can sign a contract that we'll pay pensions for the next 40 years in exchange for a service now (say education), but I can move away a…

Yes, the taxpayers can leave. But on the other side are the people providing the service with whom the government has made these contracts.

Some people took these positions based on the deferred compensation. If that goes away, there will need to be upfront compensation. If neither of those happen you won't find many qualified people willing to take those jobs. Both sides will get screwed.

Re: Amazon Terminates Illinois Affiliates

#90

Post by bambax »

repiret wrote: post #86
bambax wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vendor never has to "pay" any sales tax: they collect it (my initial wording was wrong). It's the buyer who has to pay sales tax. Being French, if I buy anything anywhere in the world, I owe the French government 20% of the amount of that purchase; if I'm able to hide my purchase in my suitcase, then I'm evading taxes, but I'm certainly never exempt. The crux of the matter is whether Amazon is an "out of state se…

In the United States, the vendor always pays the sales tax. Its customary for the vendor to itemize it separately on their customer's bill and exclude it from listed prices, but its the vendor who has to write a check to the government, the vendor who has reporting obligations to the tax authorities, and the vendor who gets in trouble if it isn't paid. I suspect its the same in France, but I don't really know.

The vendor collects the sales tax from the customer, and then (a month later) reports it to the government and pays the government back; but the only sales taxes that a vendor owes are the ones it has collected (or, in case of a dispute with the govt, the ones it is assumed to have collected).

If for example a customer buys but does not pay, then the sales tax associated with that purchase is not owed.

Post reply on HN