No More Amazon Affiliation

[pacific493]

[quote=staff]Thanks to the shortsightedness of our elected leaders in Sacramento, Amazon has terminated FBTB's affiliate relationship due to California legislature attempting to collect tax on online sales. Warning: Political rant ensuing.

Here's the situation as best I understand it: Federal tax law requires that online stores must collect sales tax if the merchant operates in a particular state. Since Amazon does not operate in the state of California, it does not have to collect nor pay state sales tax. California legislature, in an attempt to close a deficit in the budget, proposed a work around to the Federal law by taxing sales made through affiliate partners for such merchants as Amazon and Overstock.

[pacific493]

Here's one such bill: "Senate Majority Whip rooster Durbin (D-Ill.) says he plans to introduce a bill, called the Main Street Fairness Act, mandating that all businesses collect the sales tax in the state where the consumer resides. "

Although I think this is a terrible idea, and I don't support it, I can't help but notice that the way this is worded, it SHOULD mean that no matter WHERE I buy stuff, I shouldn't have to pay sales tax, since my home state has none. To interpret it any other way would mean that they weren't LEVELING the playing field, but tilting it in AGAINST on-line businesses.

Why do you think that this would tilt the playing field against on-line businesses? Internet retailers enjoy some fairly significant advantages over brick & mortar retailers as a result of their virtual nature, such as the burdens associated with operating a brick & mortar establishment. Granted, brick & mortar retailers enjoy advantages over internet retailers, such as convenience. However, I don't see how making both internet retailers and brick & mortar retailers collect and remit sales taxes in the same fashion tilts the playing field against internet retailers.

[StoutFiles]

Here's one such bill: "Senate Majority Whip rooster Durbin (D-Ill.) says he plans to introduce a bill, called the Main Street Fairness Act, mandating that all businesses collect the sales tax in the state where the consumer resides. "

Although I think this is a terrible idea, and I don't support it, I can't help but notice that the way this is worded, it SHOULD mean that no matter WHERE I buy stuff, I shouldn't have to pay sales tax, since my home state has none. To interpret it any other way would mean that they weren't LEVELING the playing field, but tilting it in AGAINST on-line businesses.

Why do you think that this would tilt the playing field against on-line businesses? Internet retailers enjoy some fairly significant advantages over brick & mortar retailers as a result of their virtual nature, such as the burdens associated with operating a brick & mortar establishment. Granted, brick & mortar retailers enjoy advantages over internet retailers, such as convenience. However, I don't see how making both internet retailers and brick & mortar retailers collect and remit sales taxes in the same fashion tilts the playing field against internet retailers.

Many small businesses could not handle the accurate collection and payment of sales tax for all their consumers. Many consumers would find that with sales tax included the savings are less than just heading down to a local store and buying the product.

[pacific493]

Although I think this is a terrible idea, and I don't support it, I can't help but notice that the way this is worded, it SHOULD mean that no matter WHERE I buy stuff, I shouldn't have to pay sales tax, since my home state has none. To interpret it any other way would mean that they weren't LEVELING the playing field, but tilting it in AGAINST on-line businesses.

Why do you think that this would tilt the playing field against on-line businesses? Internet retailers enjoy some fairly significant advantages over brick & mortar retailers as a result of their virtual nature, such as the burdens associated with operating a brick & mortar establishment. Granted, brick & mortar retailers enjoy advantages over internet retailers, such as convenience. However, I don't see how making both internet retailers and brick & mortar retailers collect and remit sales taxes in the same fashion tilts the playing field against internet retailers.

Many small businesses could not handle the accurate collection and payment of sales tax for all their consumers. Many consumers would find that with sales tax included the savings are less than just heading down to a local store and buying the product.

But doesn't that suggest that those aren't viable businesses? If an internet business can't attract sufficient customers or sales to operate profitably when following the same tax administration rules as its brick and mortar competitors, that just seems to me like the free market at work.

[StoutFiles]

Viable small businesses shouldn't need Amazon affiliation to survive, but here we are. I'm just saying that the Internet is all but dominated by big business, and any laws making life more difficult for small businesses, albeit barely, is painful.

This really isn't about Amazon, just the way things are headed for all small businesses on the web. If FBTB does find a workaround, it'll only be temporary.

[onions]

Locking thread. New thread here: Amazon Is A Go!