Posted by Kromey at 9:14pm Aug 4 '11I could swear someone had posted a thread here about California demanding Amazon.com (and other online retailers) that had a "significant presence" in the state collect state sales tax. I recall specifically making the point that Californians owe that sales tax (actually apparently called a "use tax" when bought from out-of-state) whether the retailer collects it or not, but they evade those taxes instead.
Amazon.com (and others) naturally responded by simply pulling up stakes -- in the case of Amazon.com, revising their Amazon Associates program (of which I am a member) terms of service to, in a nutshell, prohibit Californians from participating, which was California's justification for declaring Amazon to have a "significant presence" in the state.
It's yet another perfect example of how raising taxes can reduce revenue.
Anyway, just came across the story linked below today. It goes into more detail not only in the current case, but goes into the history of the whole thing, too, all the way back to the SCOTUS decision declaring that, unless Congress were to enact a law saying that all retailers, regardless of where they are, have to collect sales tax, then retailers outside of a state cannot be required by that state to collect their taxes, for the obvious burden it would foist upon interstate commerce. It also points out how California was getting around that: A company in the state selling to citizens of the state is no longer "interstate commerce", of course.
So, Amazon made themselves interstate commerce once again. By kicking Californians out of their affiliate program.
The more California makes itself hostile to business, the fewer businesses it will have, and the more dire the state's budget crisis becomes.
Amazon.com (and others) naturally responded by simply pulling up stakes -- in the case of Amazon.com, revising their Amazon Associates program (of which I am a member) terms of service to, in a nutshell, prohibit Californians from participating, which was California's justification for declaring Amazon to have a "significant presence" in the state.
It's yet another perfect example of how raising taxes can reduce revenue.
Anyway, just came across the story linked below today. It goes into more detail not only in the current case, but goes into the history of the whole thing, too, all the way back to the SCOTUS decision declaring that, unless Congress were to enact a law saying that all retailers, regardless of where they are, have to collect sales tax, then retailers outside of a state cannot be required by that state to collect their taxes, for the obvious burden it would foist upon interstate commerce. It also points out how California was getting around that: A company in the state selling to citizens of the state is no longer "interstate commerce", of course.
So, Amazon made themselves interstate commerce once again. By kicking Californians out of their affiliate program.
The more California makes itself hostile to business, the fewer businesses it will have, and the more dire the state's budget crisis becomes.
Can't find the original thread - Kromey