Wait-- so Amazon using its corporate clout against its users & consumers is...Connecticut's fault? For...what, collecting taxes? For not kowtowing to Amazon's corporate interests? Your headline is backwards...AMAZON killed the affiliate marketing program, not the state of Connecticut. Though hey-- I'm all for tech & IT people moving to New York...we need you here!
I'm sorry whenever I hear this happening to people anywhere. It really sucks when a revenue source major or not is just taken away from you. As more and more states pass similar laws, I'm wondering at some point of Amazon will cave in or just give up on their affiliate program altogether.
The title gives away your bias. Amazon, in fact, killed affiliate marketing in CT. The state of Connecticut did something the company didn't like.
One can infer that this is fisticuffs, because Amazon isn't terminating all sales to Connecticut, which would amount to a refusal to pay the income tax. Instead they've chosen to infuriate a minority group whom they hope will loudly oppose the tax measure.
Matthew Fedak: it's not a law but a directive and as any directive it's basically a suggestion to EU nations to make or change their own laws accordingly. I do wish my nation, Italy, really take all EU directives seriously and legiferate accordingly. Unfortunately that's not the case.
Anyway, what's wrong with letting the users know what we developers are doing under the hood of their computers and let them choose if the spreading of their data is ok with them or not?
Are you afraid that having the users click another ok button would be too much for them and so they will abandon a transaction? Well, have you ever booked an airplane ticket? If you're interested in a transaction, you will do any effort required.
Or are you afraid that if users really understand what you do with cookies (i.e. tracking them and spreading their data without their knowledge/consent and/or earning a commission on their purchases - if based on your suggestions - that would not increase their cost) then they will not accept that?
Then don't you think it would be anti-ethical to keep users in ignorance and refusing them the right of choice just because it better fits your own interest as a developer, or your clients' one?
If I should sacrifice your or mine right to "earn some bucks here or there" (or better, making a little harder to exercise it by warning users) in order to provide a better privacy for the general user (me included) then I think it's ok for me.
jonkelly 5 days ago | link
I'm still kind of mystified as to how these laws keep getting passed. I think there is clearly room for debate about whether or not Amazon customers should pay sales tax in their home jurisdictions. But, there is no reasonable debate about these laws. They have perfectly predictable results: law is passed, Amazon nukes affiliates, state loses income tax from affiliates, gains nothing as a result. I find it incredible that state lawmakers either think that it will be different in their state or that it's worth destroying the incomes of their taxpayers to just make a symbolic gesture. Does anyone have a reasonable justification for the lawmakers' actions or is it really just a mix of idiocy, vindictiveness, and appeasement of local donors? reply
DanielBMarkham 5 days ago | link
I'll play devil's advocate. First, governments consistently think of the economy as a static model. So you add up how many online sales you have, add in a percentage tax, and expect to make that money. Second, Amazon pulling out or not is simply a short-term obstacle. The long term strategy is to put a stake in the ground, then continue to lobby and work at the national level. This sets precedent, even if it doesn't work. Third, there's a lot of ignorance. You don't have to pass an economics test to become a legislator. I think sometimes in any group that deals with another group there's an "us versus them" mentality that takes over. In some folks' mind, if you're making money, they should get a share of it to spread around. Trying to adapt and configure your business model to optimize -- or simply just to survive -- is a sign of selfish, unethical behavior. Both sides of tax debates engage in a lot of emotional over the top rhetoric. It's easy to lose track of priorities and principles. reply
gaius 5 days ago | link
Actually, it only goes as far as if you're making money, they should get a share of it. Pork barrels aren't just Federal. reply
DanielBMarkham 4 days ago | link
Indeed. I find it very difficult to underscore this point without going on a rant -- perhaps because I find it so bad. Let's say I'm living in IL and making 10K a month with Amazon sales. This is all because of a lot of hard work putting bits on a server somewhere in Austin or something. People come from all over the world to consume content and buy things. Aside from the legal discussion, in practical terms what part of this equation involves the state of Illinois? I don't mean to be facile, but looks to me like the only reason they're coming for the money is because they can. In any other scenario we'd call this a shakedown. But because politicians do it we call it policy. Weird. I'm not by any means arguing for no government, just pointing out that most times when I pay a tax there's something concrete and direct in return. If I pay property taxes, it goes to the local school. If I pay a road toll, it goes for road maintenance. If I buy a fishing license, I pay for game inspectors. This payment and feedback loop allows me to be able to judge if a tax is working or not -- and form some kind of opinion about what rates might be best. Here I'm just paying the state because they have the power to hurt me if I don't pay them. Seems to me once you reach a certain point in decoupling taxes from benefits, there's no rational basis to have any kind of compromise any more. Instead you get these hugely polarized debates. This is not a good system for people to live in. reply
earl 4 days ago | link
What part of it involved IL? Are you being deliberately obtuse? You living in IL. States charge taxes to provide services to the people who live and enter the state. You live in the state, therefore it is entirely appropriate for IL to charge you income tax. If you don't like it, vote in different representatives because the other thing that you get to do in IL is vote for IL state representatives. reply
danking00 4 days ago | link
If I understand his metaphor and current law correctly: this law changes nothing about income tax. Regardless of this law, Mr. Amazon-Affiliate pays income tax to the State of Illinois on his Amazon affiliate income. I believe the poignant line from the blog post is: ... imposes the collection of taxes from consumers on sales by online retailers – including but not limited to those referred by Connecticut-based affiliates like you – even if those retailers have no physical presence in the state. I interpret this as saying "if a Connecticut resident refers customer X to company Y, and X buys a product from Y, then company Y must pay tax on that sale." The only necessary tie to Connecticut is the referrer. Of course, they'd also tax Mr. Amazon-Affiliate's affiliate income as well. That smells like double taxation. Also, I think your comment suggesting that "If you don't like it, vote in different representatives," is rude. Obviously, Mr. Markham is aware of his Democratic rights and duties. He very well might vote against this sort of legislation, and he doesn't deserve to hear derisive comments when voicing his disapproval. edit: formatted the quote for easier reading reply
crasshopper 4 days ago | link
I actually don't understand that part of it. How do sales tax on CT consumers -- who may or may not be driven to Amazon by a CT affiliate -- compel Amazon to terminate the affiliate programme? CT-based affiliates may be driving traffic from outside CT, and CT-based purchases -- the thing being taxed -- might have been driven by an affiliate in Iceland. Terminating sales to Connecticut would amount to a refusal to pay the tax. Instead Amazon has chosen to raze the profits of a minority of CT constituents. They must be hoping that the ousted affiliates will march on New Haven. (If I were a successful affiliate, though, I'd just make an out-of-state LLC and pass income through.) reply
SoftwareMaven 4 days ago | link
I believe the problem comes from having a physical presence in the state. Most states have sales tax rules that say if you have a physical presence, you must charge sales tax. The rules were changed such that Connecticut is treating affiliates as a physical presence. If Amazon keeps the affiliates, they have to charge sales tax on everybody who purchases in Connecticut, which they really don't want to do. While I'm sure part of the reason they don't want to charge tax is that no tax makes Amazon cheaper, I bet a bigger portion is the headache of trying to manage every single municipalities convoluted sales tax rules. I know in my city (in Utah), there are dozens of rules for types of goods that determine different rates. Imagine doing that on a nationwide scale. reply
machinedog 3 days ago | link
I think the problem is that they want to apply a sales tax to anyone that is referred to Amazon /worldwide/ by a Connecticut referrer. That is why Amazon argues that it is unconstitutional. If it were simply taxing Connecticut consumers it would be similarly complicated, but I think there is more constitutional grounds for this. I'd have to check. It's not like Amazon is going to pull out of the state. reply
vampirical 4 days ago | link
The whole point is that rather than the state happily collecting their income tax on any income generated by state residents, which they have always been able to do, they are attempting to levy a tax against all Amazon commerce transactions based on the fact that they have affiliates operating in the state. DanielBMarkham is not making a case that IL isn't entitled to tax his income from the Amazon affiliate program. It is taken for granted that they will tax the additional income, as they have been doing since before this new budget/law. What they are attempting to do is tax more than just income generated by affiliates living in the state, which is where the argument that they are not contributing to the flow of business which would warrant that. reply
crasshopper 4 days ago | link
Vampirical, I'm not sure I understand you. Illinois spends state funds to make Chicago, Peoria, Carbondale,... attractive to live in. People with money thus move to / stay in IL and spend some of their money online. Isn't that a contribution on Illinois' part? reply
joelhaus 4 days ago | link
>Let's say I'm living in IL >Aside from the legal discussion, in practical terms what part of this equation involves the state of Illinois? In practical terms, the argument goes that you benefit from the safety and health services that are (at least in part) provided by the state during the hours you work, marketing for Amazon. By extension, Amazon is also benefiting from these services provided (at least in part) by the state, which can be proven by identifying a single payment made from Amazon to an affiliate that is a resident of IL. Legally, this could be grounds for one to argue that, by providing marketing services for Amazon while working in IL, nexus[1] has been created. [1] http://www.bna.com/state-tax-nexus-p9122/ reply
joelhaus 4 days ago | link
Care to comment on why this was down-voted? Did I misunderstand Daniel's question or not appropriately address it? I would assume that some have taken this as advocating on behalf of states that impose sales tax on companies due to the residency of their affiliates. I carefully worded my comment so that this was not the case. On the other hand, if you feel I'm wrong about the position that these states have taken, please correct me... UPDATED: My position on tax policy is not germane to Daniel's question and based on the rest of this post, would just be redundant to include. When a thread strongly reflects one side of an issue, it's much less dull to try and articulate the counter-point of view... wish more people would try this. reply
jbooth 5 days ago | link
Thanks, that's the argument exactly, specifically the second part. Regarding the static model, it's not so much that it's a static model as that for the overwhelming majority of online purchases, it's displacing a local purchase. It's actually a more capitalist economy from a certain point of view to make online and local purchasing compete on the same ground, especially when the market distortion (which yes stems from sales taxes' existence in the first place, coupled with the commerce clause) discriminates against your voters. reply
yummyfajitas 4 days ago | link
Online and local purchasing do compete on the same ground. A local store uses CT state services and pays taxes to support them. An online store does not use CT state services and does not pay taxes to support them. Similarly, many companies use Microsoft software and pay license fees. My company does not. Would it be "more capitalist" if we were forced to pay a Microsoft tax, to eliminate the "market distortion" of using lower cost software? reply
crasshopper 4 days ago | link
yummyfajitas, I think by "more capitalist" jbooth means "more competitive". You are obviously right that forcing companies to use higher-cost inputs is inefficient, but taxes are not an input -- they're a necessary burden meant to be shared. To take an extreme example, using a tax shelter could lower the cost of a company's services while decreasing the efficiency of the economy. reply
yummyfajitas 4 days ago | link
Of course taxes pay for inputs - the inputs are public goods. Taxes are compulsory only to prevent freeloading - you might enjoy the benefits of the CT state police without paying for them. Amazon doesn't enjoy the benefit of the CT state police. Hence, it is not efficient to force them to pay for it. A tax shelter is only inefficient if it allows a company to consume services while forcing others to pay for them. If a company does not consume those services, it is inefficient to force the company to pay for them. reply
crasshopper 4 days ago | link
yummyfajitas, can you give a real-world example of a tax haven which is Pareto equivalent or superior to the company paying its taxes? Also, who says Amazon pays the tax? Insert elasticity argument. reply
yummyfajitas 4 days ago | link
In the real world nothing is Pareto equivalent or superior to anything else, except maybe for gifts given to hermits. Pareto efficiency is a purely theoretical construct. reply
crasshopper 4 days ago | link
You're dodging the essence of the question. Give us one real world example of a case where tax evasion has been A Good Thing. yummyfajitas, it frankly sounds like you're econtrolling. I looked at your profile and you seem like a smart, educated person, so I'll respond in good faith so you can see how weak your arguments sound. > Taxes are compulsory only to prevent freeloading Says who? This sounds like a stylised model from Econ 101. > A tax shelter is only inefficient if it allows a company to consume services while forcing others to pay for them. Prove it. > Amazon doesn't enjoy the benefit of the CT state police. I don't use the Merritt Parkway but that doesn't mean I don't owe tax on it. > Pareto efficiency is a purely theoretical construct. This from someone who just boiled the entire political economy of Connecticut down to a prisoner's dilemma? > If a company does not consume those services, it is inefficient to force the company to pay for them. What is your reasoning? Perhaps you are sharing these thoughts before giving them a sound-check? I don't mean to be rude but what you're saying doesn't make sense coming from someone of your educational background. reply
yummyfajitas 4 days ago | link
First of all, you are conflating tax avoidance (taking actions to avoid tax liability) with tax evasion (lying to the tax authorities about your liabilities). In the real world, one efficient "tax shelter" is Amazon locating itself outside of CT. If Amazon were to pay taxes to CT, then CT would produce the public services necessary to support Amazon. Since Amazon is not located in CT, this would be wasteful. Thus, Amazon locating themselves outside of CT and avoiding CT taxes is A Good Thing. [edit: you appear to have edited your post extensively after I responded to it. It's generally polite to indicate when you do this.] reply
crasshopper 4 days ago | link
> you are conflating tax avoidance with tax evasion Fair enough. I meant to use tax evasion as an extreme example to prove the inner case, but I can see how it would look like conflation. > one efficient "tax shelter" is Amazon locating itself outside of CT Petitio principii. > Since Amazon is not located in CT, this would be wasteful. Does not follow. Where is the dead weight loss? reply
SamReidHughes 4 days ago | link
Literally every case of tax evasion under a government where the tax rate is too high and the marginal utility of higher taxes is negative. reply
crasshopper 4 days ago | link
Can you give a real example of a case where this has actually happened? (by marginal utility I assume you mean marginal revenue; governments do not have utility) reply
SamReidHughes 4 days ago | link
No I mean marginal utility. Governments have utility. For example, they do things like give people money to maintain roads. The marginal utility of higher taxes would be the value of the extra amount of road maintainance, and all other changes to the physical universe, that happens as a result. (Edit: So compare the universes where the government rakes in $x and $x+epsilon of revenue. Which is a better universe? There are plenty of governments where $x+epsilon would produce a worse universe. It might depend on who it gets the extra epsilon from.) reply
crasshopper 4 days ago | link
Utility is only defined for individuals. It sounds like you're trying to talk about how some sum of citizens' utility functions changes as a result of a change in government spending. Response to your edit: you haven't defined "better". And I'm still waiting for a real world case where $x+$epsilon has been dominated by $x. reply
SamReidHughes 4 days ago | link
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. So wait, you're looking for a case where $x+$epsilon government revenue has greater utility than $x? Because that's the opposite of what you were asking for before... reply
crasshopper 4 days ago | link
First you have to define what "better" means since there are O(300 million) utility functions in the U.S.A. Second, I want a real-world example of a "negative marginal utility" of taxation -- which tax rate was raised, who it affected, how they evaded it, and why it was good for the society at large. reply
SamReidHughes 4 days ago | link
Homeless people paying sales taxes. Do have any other questions? reply
crasshopper 4 days ago | link
This response does not answer either question. reply
SamReidHughes 4 days ago | link
I'm sure if you're dissatisfied to my answers then you'd have no problem coming up with some of your own examples. Edit: Wait, you want me to define a utility function for people? That was your first question? That's just a stupid question. Define your own utility function. I don't care what it is. And your second question is stupid too. Sorry, I'm not a keeper-tracker of tax evasion. So let's say "any time a poor person evades taxes." Or many of those cases. If you want a specific example, too bad. If the lack of a specific counterexample of the kind you specified is actually the barrier preventing you from changing your opinion about this, then you shouldn't bother trying to have opinions about things. The fact that some people get more value in government services than they pay in taxes is proof that there are people whose tax evasion would benefit society at large. This is a simple mathematical truism. reply
crasshopper 4 days ago | link
> I'm sure if you're dissatisfied to my answers then you'd have no problem coming up with some of your own examples. I was challenging you on this point because I don't believe you can come up with an actual example of a company's tax evasion benefiting society. > Wait, you want me to define a utility function for people? No, I wanted to prompt you to think about defining a single utility function for 300 million people. There is no way to do it, because you cannot compare interpersonal utilities. Your statements about governments having utility suggests that your thinking on this topic is muddled. > If you want a specific example, too bad. No empirical evidence, then? > The fact that some people get more value in government services than they pay in taxes is proof that there are people whose tax evasion would benefit society at large. It would not benefit society at large; the benefits would be private to the evader and everyone else's tax bill would go up. > This is a simple mathematical truism. Not only is it false, but I don't think you know what a truism is. A truism is a tautology. > stupid ... stupid ... you shouldn't bother trying to have opinions about things SamReidHughes, there is a saying that to know a little economics is worse than to know none at all. I think you are overconfident in your theories and should be more humble and polite in dialogue with others. reply
jwhite 4 days ago | link
It may be displacing a local purchase... in a third, unrelated state. Only the affiliate lives in Connecticut, the purchaser may live in Colorado... or Czech Republic, for that matter. I think you have the argument about capitalism backwards. Any time someone says "that's unfair, we should change the laws to help (inefficient business X) compete more effectively with (efficient business Y)", they are directly contradicting the idea of capitalism. Where the social good lies is sometimes hard to work out; but I'd guess in this case Connecticut residents would be better off with an efficient Amazon and the ability to become Amazon Affiliates than with the small amount of tax revenue that this legislation tries to capture. reply
temphn 4 days ago | link
Hmmm. "More capitalist" would be to eliminate local sales tax to allow businesses to compete. reply
sutro 4 days ago | link
You don't have to pass an economics test to become a legislator. Would that it were so. reply
chopsueyar 5 days ago | link
The part I have a hard time comprehending in these situations is that many legislators have legal backgrounds being attorneys, yet seem to completely forget about the constitution. reply
jbooth 5 days ago | link
Seems that the collateral damage to affiliates from this law is specifically because those legislators understand the commerce clause of the constitution. reply
OstiaAntica 4 days ago | link
The constitution explicitly prohibits states from interfering with interstate commerce, which is what Connecticut is doing (forcing regulation on a company outside their state), and is why Amazon is calling the law unconstitutional. reply
earl 4 days ago | link
Except it doesn't occur outside their state if an amazon affiliate is in CT. Hence amazon withdrawing. reply
nkassis 4 days ago | link
Exactly, they are bending they are pushing the rules just enough to get away with it and have something that's not unconstitutional (at least according to them) It's in a way ingenious what they are doing. Law making is a form of hacking in my view. reply
jonkelly 5 days ago | link
responding to each point. 1) expecting to "make that money" when no other state has is idiocy. 2) the "stake in the ground" is just symbolic. Do they really think that helps at all? 3) like I said, I can see both sides of tax debate, I just find it wildly irresponsible to nuke the revenue for a bunch of your constituents because you've lost track of priorities. reply
jbooth 5 days ago | link
RE: 1), you'll notice a lot of big market states have all jumped at the same time. That makes the jump look a lot more appealing to me if I'm a state legislator. Eventually Amazon won't want to forfeit affiliate business in every big state economy except Texas and Delaware. Or that's the gamble, at least. reply
jonkelly 5 days ago | link
nostromo had the right response to that below. There are plenty of jurisdictions for the larger affiliates to jump over to. I'd be very surprised if Amazon doesn't have a 95/5 ratio like most affiliate programs in terms of revenue produced by largest affiliates. The bigger affiliates will have no problem incorporating in one of the no tax states. reply
18pfsmt 4 days ago | link
Just to illustrate your point, in Colorado the legislature did this same thing (lobbying by small business was used as justification), but the large affiliates I'm familiar with (2, specifically) moved their offices to Laramie, Wyoming (2.5hrs from Denver). Keep in mind, there are ~5M people in our entire state. reply
InclinedPlane 5 days ago | link
The justification for these actions is simple: every state has spent the last many years spending themselves into a great deal of debt, now they are desperately grasping for revenue and amazon has big pockets. reply
jonkelly 5 days ago | link
But... it hasn't worked at all, producing not even one penny for any of the states that have tried it. Isn't that the proverbial definition of insanity? reply
jbooth 5 days ago | link
Most states were actually doing great as of 2000, and have been cutting relative to their cost inflation for the last decade or so. 10-15% healthcare cost inflation has been spending states into debt. reply
InclinedPlane 5 days ago | link
Connecticut has increased its state spending by about 50-60% over the 2000-2010 period while its economy grew by only 15% in that time. reply
jbooth 4 days ago | link
And what % of that is healthcare costs? Check it out. I don't know conneticut that well but if you employ a lot of people, and they have healthcare, then it was a huge cost to roll them over these past 11 years. reply
petercooper 4 days ago | link
It specifically imposes the collection of taxes from consumers on sales by online retailers [..] even if those retailers have no physical presence in the state. The wording of this implies that Amazon now has to charge sales tax to customers in CT. If so, isn't that a massive gain for the state? Or will Amazon just ignore the law? reply
fierarul 5 days ago | link
Think of it as a signaling game: what happens when all the US states have similar laws. Will Amazon just give up on affiliates? reply
nostromo 5 days ago | link
Remember, there are five states that do not charge sales tax, so they have no incentive to fight Amazon. There are another five states where Amazon already collects sales tax. So, that's 10 states that have no reason to pass similar laws. And of course, affiliates that make a sizable amount of money will probably not move, but will instead simply incorporate in one of those states (one of which happens to be Delaware). reply
jonkelly 5 days ago | link
Exactly. There are plenty of choices of jurisdiction for the bigger affiliates that matter to Amazon. This is really just a "nuke the mom and pop blogger" effect. reply
_delirium 4 days ago | link
Can you really just change the place of incorporation? I thought to avoid a determination (under these laws) that Amazon itself has a physical presence in a state via its affiliates, Amazon was refusing to accept affiliates who had any physical presence in the states in question. As I read it, if your corporation is incorporated in Delaware but has its offices in Connecticut, you're no longer eligible for the affiliate program. Enforcement might be another matter; seems like there's a good chance that you won't get flagged if you give Amazon a Delaware mailing address, even if you're (as a company or individual) resident elsewhere. But you don't even need to incorporate to do that. reply
gscott 5 days ago | link
With the widespread adoption of the Google Content network for advertising I am wondering if affiliate links are needed because they can just show up in the Google ad and the advertiser gets paid for clicks. The previous affiliate can still make a page about a product but let Google figure out the links to show. reply
chopsueyar 5 days ago | link
Think of what happens when all US states legalize medicinal marijuana? It is still illegal at the federal level. How much money can a state afford to spend on federal litigation against a team of Amazon's lawyers? reply
raganwald 5 days ago | link
My guess would be that the "income" from affiliates is immaterial, but the states have a different problem: They do apply the tax to other companies with a "presence" in the state, and if they didn't attempt to collect from Amazon, they would face a challenge from companies that maintain a less tenuous presence in the state such as physical stores. INAL, but if CT didn't try to collect the tax from Amazon, I would expect Barnes and Noble to argue that bn.com sales should be tax exempt even though they have a brick and mortar store in Glastonbury, CT. reply
chopsueyar 5 days ago | link
Except the whole argument comes down to physical presence. Now, if Barnes and Noble had a caravan of mobile RV bookstores registered in a different state that came into CT to sell books, B&N would have a better argument. reply
etherael 4 days ago | link
We hear you have money, we'd like it. reply
hvs 5 days ago | link
Illinois did something similar with what it called the "Mainstreet Fairness Act" in March [1]. Illinois, as you may know, was rated as the worst state in the country for debt last year [2]. These states would rather chase after more revenues (and chase companies out of their states in the process) rather than have to do the hard work of actually cutting spending. [1] http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-10/business/ct-bi... [2] http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/44/debt-10_Global-Debt-Cris... reply
raganwald 5 days ago | link
There are two orthogonal questions to ask: 1. How much should states tax their citizens? and: 2. Given a certain amount of tax to collect, what is/are the best mechanism(s)? You seem to be talking to point number one. Eliminating sales tax or collecting it from fewer transactions would accomplish that, but so would applying the law exactly as CT applies it but lowering the percentage collected on each transaction. For that reason, I find it confusing to look at a situation like this and slide into arguing about cutting spending. If they should tax people less, fine, but that's orthogonal to the question of how they tax people and the consequences of the tax mechanisms they choose to employ. reply
jwhite 4 days ago | link
The phrase "Mainstreet Fairness Act" sounds like something directly out of Atlas Shrugged. reply
fleitz 4 days ago | link
Why is cutting spending hard work? You just write a lower number on the budget, voila, less gets spent. I mean the only thing you really have to do to cut spending is for a Governor to refuse to sign the budget, spending gets cut automatically. In my opinion cutting spending is less work. reply
[deleted]
cheez 5 days ago | link
Think about the children. reply
irons 5 days ago | link
I've heard about Amazon pulling this tactic in NY and other states that forced them to start collecting sales tax, but that is one breathtakingly petulant letter. What exactly is the constitutional issue they're alluding to? (I live in Washington state, where Amazon has always collected sales tax, so personally it seems like a non-issue.) reply
hvs 5 days ago | link
The issue is collecting sales tax for items bought outside of their state. Interstate commerce is a federal jurisdiction. If they collect sales tax in Washington state, it's because they have an office there. reply
lotharbot 4 days ago | link
In Amazon's case, they have a lot of offices in Washington state, including their headquarters. They have always collected WA sales tax. reply
irons 4 days ago | link
That's not a constitutional argument for Amazon's position. You're obligated to pay sales tax on items purchased out of state, by annual remittance. Almost nobody does it, but if you're ever audited (by your state), they can ding you if you don't. Amazon is plenty big enough to be specifically called out by cash-strapped state governments for, effectively, encouraging people to evade the law. reply
_delirium 5 days ago | link
A more accurate headline would be: Amazon.com kills affiliate marketing in Connecticut, due to dissatisfaction with new Connecticut law. reply
jonknee 5 days ago | link
If a state enacts a law that will make a business lose money without changing polices, it's not the company's fault if they change policies. Amazon's pullout was a completely known outcome of the law well before it was put into place. reply
_delirium 5 days ago | link
Sure, companies can do whatever they wish (within the law) in response to any factors they choose to take into account. But I think it's still Amazon making the decision here; from the headline, I had thought that Connecticut banned affiliate programs or something. I'd similarly say that Boeing's move from Seattle to Chicago, partly due to tax policies, was a decision made by Boeing, not by Seattle. reply
jonknee 5 days ago | link
By that logic, the state can never be to blamed when making decisions that affect businesses. This wasn't an unintended consequence--every time a similar law has passed Amazon has acted identically on the exact day that it begins. reply
_delirium 5 days ago | link
I'm not saying the state can't be blamed, either, just that the headline is misleading. My comment was not a political one, but one about headlines that editorialize at the expense of clarity. If you want to emphasize the state's culpability, that can still be done with somethting like, "Connecticut tax change causes Amazon to pull affiliate program". I do think Amazon's action was predictable, but it's still Amazon's action. I'm also not quite sure it was mandated by the decision; I suspect Amazon could still turn a profit even by retaining its CT affiliate program, but with the current landscape (% of states that do versus don't have such laws) it was a better business decision to pull out. Amazon is also probably looking at it as a strategic move to put pressure on other states, rather than considering the CT business case in isolation. reply
chopsueyar 5 days ago | link
No, then Amazon would have set the precedent that it is acceptable for Amazon to collect sales tax for every muncipality it does business with. Why should it be any different than a mail-order catalog? Coordinating the payout of sales tax for every state and city in the US? Coding and compliance nightmare. If the Connecticut legislature legalized slavery (in direct conflict with federal law), and businesses were disgusted at the idea and refused to continue to conduct business in Connecticut, would you still argue the same reasoning? PS "Connecticut Killed Affiliate Marketing with Amazon.com" seems clear to most of us. reply
_delirium 5 days ago | link
What reasoning am I arguing? I'm making two comments in the comment you're responding to: 1. The article headline is a bit misleading, and should've said something like: Amazon pulls out of CT due to a tax-law change. Even, Terrible CT Tax-Law Change Drives Amazon Out, or something. As it's written, I thought that CT had banned affiliate programs; in a rush to editorialize, the headline author sacrificed clarity about agency. Of course, maybe everyone reading is already following the saga, so I was the only briefly confused person, but nonetheless it seemed like an easy problem to avoid. 2. Amazon is probably pulling out in part due to, as you say, a feeling that this would set a negative precedent for their business, not solely due to the CT case taken in isolation. Your slavery example seems off the mark; Amazon is not taking action due to moral opposition to CT's tax policy, but because it's bad for their business. They happily do business in states with all sorts of unethical laws without complaining about them, as long as those laws don't impact their profits. reply
chopsueyar 5 days ago | link
My 'slavery example' was actually a question I was asking you, not an example. Not sure why you got confused with the headline or this discussion. reply
pvodsevhcm 4 days ago | link
You really don't understand _delirium's point, or are you just playing stupid? reply
chopsueyar 4 days ago | link
Please enlighten me. reply
InclinedPlane 5 days ago | link
My reading is that Amazon would have had to charge sales tax on the full price of the item if the buyer and the referer were both in Connecticut. It doesn't take an ecommerce expert to figure out that sort of model is not sustainable. Edit: on reread it appears that the law was written such that amazon would have to collect sales tax on all sales to CT buyers because the affiliates counted as a "local presence". reply
earl 4 days ago | link
Not sustainable? All sorts of businesses collect sales taxes in CT -- every establishment you enter. And despite the (to you) obvious non sustainability of this, somehow the businesses are still there. Which could lead you to believe that collecting sales tax is, in fact, sustainable. reply
InclinedPlane 4 days ago | link
If the only reason to pay sales tax is the existence of CT affiliates, then the affiliate system is not sustainable. Why not require all internet companies to pay local sales tax, regardless of where they are located? That seems to be the argument here. reply
rwg 4 days ago | link
Some food for thought regarding Amazon and sales tax: Amazon has plans to build and operate a distribution warehouse near Columbia, South Carolina. State and local leaders rolled out the red carpet for Amazon -- a free building site, property tax cuts, employment tax credits, and the repeal of a county law prohibiting Sunday morning sales. But Amazon also wanted a five year exemption on collecting South Carolina sales tax. After all, they would have a physical presence in the state, and there's absolutely no ambiguity about whether or not they'd have to collect sales tax at that point. When the state legislature voted "no" on the sales tax exemption, Amazon immediately stopped construction on the warehouse and took down all of the job listings for that location. There was a huge uproar, with supporters of the exemption accusing legislators of siding with "special interests." (Where "special interests" apparently means "every other business with a physical presence in South Carolina that doesn't get a sales tax exemption.") Amazon won this game of chicken, however. Faced with massive voter backlash, the state legislature flinched and voted 90-14 for a new deal that would exempt Amazon from collecting South Carolina sales tax until January 2016. The bill became law earlier this week. http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/CPT-AMAZON-SCAROLINA_5... http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/201... reply
karlkrantz 5 days ago | link
It wasn't just Amazon, but also sites owned by Amazon, including Audible. Amazon and Audible were my two sources of revenue for my site thestartupdaily.com Yesterday both accounts were closed with no advanced notice and my business model is effectively broken. While I support Amazon for taking a stand, I'm angry at Amazon for not giving some sort of warning to affiliates. It also seems like they wasted a good opportunity to get people who are most passionate about the issue to make some noise for them. The could have sent emails to affiliates as the issue was unfolding, and instead of the short and rather unfriendly letter to affiliates saying "your contract has been terminated". They should have used that notice to give people more information and phone numbers and other contact details about who is behind this. Seems to me like big chain stores buying protectionist legislation and selling it to voters as "protecting small business", while in reality they are protecting yesterday's dinosaurs and screwing forward thinking Internet based businesses. reply
dangrossman 5 days ago | link
You've had years of notice. Amazon did exactly the same thing with Illinois, Colorado, Hawaii, North Carolina... Amazon has publicly said it would do the same thing in Connecticut for months. reply
karlkrantz 5 days ago | link
Of course I knew it was a possibility, but my point is that "saying publicly" in press releases or court rooms is a lot different from having a conversation with your customers or partners. Telling people that the affiliate program will be closed to them in 30 days would have been a lot nicer than telling people that their income stops effective immediately. reply
dangrossman 4 days ago | link
Then they'd have to collect sales tax from Connecticut customers for 30 days. They'd piss off a lot more people than their affiliates, including their customers for suddenly collecting taxes they didn't used to collect, to their shareholders for creating mass customer confusion just to be nice to affiliates. reply
18pfsmt 4 days ago | link
Couldn't they simply tell their affiliates they were considering terminating the program as early as possible? I have to believe they were aware of the situation, and monitoring patiently as it unfolded. For example, I knew it was imminent in Colorado. yet I've never collected a penny in affiliate revenue. It was debated quite a bit before it passed. Edit: I guess what I'm asking is: am I missing something, or is there some reason why the affiliates couldn't have been alerted to the possibility earlier? Or, does alerting them at all require Amazon to pay sales tax? reply
dangrossman 4 days ago | link
I can't disagree that sending out an e-mail would've been nice, though it'd also not be good to stir up all the affiliates when it wasn't yet known if the bill would be made law. That aside, anyone who made a significant portion of their income as an affiliate should've been aware of the impending bill for months and have been watching whether it would pass at the same time Amazon was watching it. It's not an Amazon bill, it affects every affiliate in the state for all companies... Overstock is another big company that severed its affiliate relationships with everyone in the state when the bill passed. reply
Vivtek 5 days ago | link
Is anybody keeping track of which states this applies to? I know Illinois was (one of?) the first, and now obviously CT as well. Which states remain? reply
jonknee 5 days ago | link
Amazon is (obviously). https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/associates/agreement > In addition, if at any time following your enrollment in the Program you become a resident of Colorado, Illinois, North Carolina, Rhode Island, or Connecticut, you will become ineligible to participate in the Program, and this Operating Agreement will automatically terminate, on the date you establish residency in that state. reply
unshift 5 days ago | link
This same thing happened in Colorado a few months back, and I think California has a similar bill on the horizon reply
zaidf 5 days ago | link
North Carolina, I think, is one of them. reply
davidw 5 days ago | link
!Oregon - there is no sales tax there. reply
olefoo 5 days ago | link
Ssshh; Portland is already overrun with people who are online marketing experts... don't bring more of them. reply
sixtofour 5 days ago | link
Colorado reply
minouye 4 days ago | link
For anyone affected by this legislation, I'd encourage them to get involved with the Performance Marketing Association. They seem to be the main group (excluding merchants like Amazon) that is actively lobbying against such legislation. In fact, they recently filed suit against the Illinois Dept. of Revenue: http://performancemarketingassociation.com/pma-vs-state-of-i... reply
mikiem 4 days ago | link
Retailers, on-line or otherwise, have to pay sales tax on sales within a state where they have a physical presence. That's the way it is. The problem in this case is that CT wants sales tax on a sale that was referred by an affiliate... Even when the retailer (Amazon) and the customer are both not located in CT. In states that charge sales tax, most (all?) charge "use tax" of the same amount as sales tax, on items shipped to them from an out-of-state retailer that did not charge sales tax. Retailer customers almost never pay it, probably don't know it exists. Sates usually don't go after the tax for consumers, but they do go after businesses for it (at least they do in CA) presumably because the amount of tax is potentially much higher. In other words, technically, you have to pay sales tax when you buy something, and if you don't then you're supposed to pay the equivalent amount in "use tax". In this case, CT is trying to wedge in there and get tax when neither the buyer or the retailer are in CT. It's not a business killer for Amazon to charge and pay the taxes for every state. Many on-line retailers do. There is software and subscription services to keep billing systems up to date with current tax tables. But, who pays sales/use tax on what when a guy in CA buys something from Amazon that was referred by a CT affiliate? What about when someone in a state where Amazon has no physical presence buys from Amazon through a CT affiliate? My brain hurts and I suspect someone's getting screwed. reply
mtumbrel 4 days ago | link
I think the point is that very few CT residents actually pay the use tax, and the situation they're trying to catch is where the buyer is in CT. If Amazon had a retail presence, it would be collecting that tax and forwarding it to CT, and this law was an attempt to define affiliates as a retail presence. I agree that it's not a "business killer", but lower prices drive sales, and that's why they've fought so hard to collect nothing. Frankly I found the one-sided slant of the article a little nauseating. Couldn't you as easily say that Amazon has been abetting tax evasion for years? Who moved your cheese? Was it the Connecticut legislature or Amazon? Well, yes. Connecticut wants that 6%. Not sometimes. Always. So they passed a law. Given a choice between collecting a 6% tax and hanging out their long-time affiliates partners to dry, Amazon picked the latter. Even though I live in a high-tax state with a similar use tax requirement, I don't think Amazon's position is reasonable. Use tax compliance rates are generally pitiful. Both state and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act allow for this kind of use tax. Local sales tax collection is not optional. The goods in question do not magically teleport into the homes of Connecticut residents. They come over state roads, often carried by state residents in big trucks. If they weren't bought over the internet, they'd be bought at stores where residents would be paying 6% or more. reply
andrewpi 5 days ago | link
Anyone know the status of Amazon's litigation with New York State? Amazon still charges sales tax to NY addresses. reply
username98 4 days ago | link
I don't get why Amazon didn't cut off all its New York affiliates yet. reply
forgetcolor 5 days ago | link
IL also mandated a boycott of Amazon for any state procurement. IOW no state employee can buy goods from Amazon using state purchasing methods (refardless of aource of funds). Of course it's not like any sales taxes were paid by tne state since they're exempt. reply
MediaTrustpete 4 days ago | link
The PMA Performance Marketing Association just filed the first law suit to fight the Affiliate Nexus Tax. this is the first action of its kind from the internet marketing industry fighting back.. Performance Marketing Association Sues State of Illinois over Affiliate Nexus Law Lawsuit Aims to Protect 9,000 Illinois Small Businesses; State Will Lose Estimated $22 Million in Income Taxes if Law Takes Effect http://performancemarketingassociation.com/pma-vs-state-of-i... worth while checking out and helping support and spread this info... reply
bwb 4 days ago | link
Arkansas did too earlier this week. reply
CT is CRAZY! I can see a good debate on whether someone making a purchase on the internet should be state taxes to their own state as the product is being delivered to them. I DO NOT see how a consumer should have to pay taxes to a state where the product that they ordered neither came from that state, nor do they (the consumer) live in that state. (The only person involved in the transaction is the affiliate who is living in the state that wants the taxes (CT, in this case). The affiliate does not supply the product but only offers a link telling visitors who visit his/her website about the product as a recommendation. And they don't make a whole lot for that recommendation. (But it is an income source however small that supports people (and these people DO pay taxes already on the revenue that they earn thru their affiliate links). CT is money-hungry and very short-sighted and showing way too much greed.
I am a CT resident UNFORTUNATELY!! I set up a wishlist from Amazon to put on my site when I come to find out I can't. Then I got to this website. SERIOUSLY?? We are looking to get the heck out of this overpriced, big government BS. Everywhere I turn my hands are tied and my wallet is empty. CT Sucks!
I am curious - is this still in effect? (Dec. 2012?) Wondering if any legislation since has changed this.
I agree Amazon is big and can throw its weight around but I think it is essential to see the lack of sense in this Connecticut law.
Amazon aside.
The benefit to local retailers doesn't pan out, if protecting them was the intent of this law.
Consumers buy online or they don't. Affiliate taxing doesn't affect that behavior at all.
Consumers buying online from Connecticut may pay Connecticut sales taxes, depending. It should stay that way. Consumers from Pennsylvania who arrive at the merchant by clicking on merchant's ad on a Connecticut web page may have to pay Penn. Sales tax on their purchase. End of story.
What Connecticut did was meaningful in one way and one way only, and the meaning is a negative one - there is no upside to this law -- it hit the little person, the person with a webpage who is trying to make a little money on the side by hosting an ad for an online merchant, such as Amazon.
And what then does Amazon and other merchants do with a customer in Penn, say, and the affiliate in Conn? Pay two taxes? One to Connecticut, one to Penn?
Is this correct?
Do people really feel that advertising should be treated that way?
Say I live in Texas and take a road trip to Connecticut and see a billboard on I-91 for L.L. Bean. I write down the phone number, which is LL Bean's Rockport, ME phone number. When I get home to Dallas, I call the number and buy a parka, which is shipped to me from Rockport Me. I disclose to LL Bean that I am calling because I saw a billboard in Connecticut. Connecticut, therefore, taxes the sale because the ad was on a billboard in Connecticut?
Do I understand this correctly that this is analogous?
And this benefits whom? It benefits nobody.
It hurts ad hosts and the merchant and nobody else. it doesn't benefit local retailers and doesn't even benefit big box stores directly.
What it is is a malicious political hit and nothing else - meant to harm, only harm, and is not for any particular good. It is a bad law and an essentially corrupt law.
So, is there anything I am missing? Is there information I don't have that would justify this law?
I agree with Cyndy that it mostly comes down to greed. It is tempting to try to see other motives in Connecticut - complicated revenue problems in search of solutions. Enacting this one even though it is probably an error.
But that is giving Connecticut way to much credit.
Connecticut has problems like everywhere else, but every place is different and Connecticut has flaws that are particularly Connecticut. Among the most gaping flaws about which Connecticut remains in deep denial is its unceasing greed, selfishness and contempt for each other.
Because it thinks of itself as such a smart and wealthy state, it never notices how stupid and oppressive it is.
It has a bloated bureaucracy that is really expensive and less effective than in leaner less wealthy states where agencies actually get things done. Connecticut government more than most places i know really does exists to feed itself.
Its bureaucracy is particularly nasty and neurotic too so that state services often aren't delivered to constituents by the over-funded state agencies mandated to deliver them. If every state in the nation functioned like Connecticut does, the nation would collapse in a week.
Connecticut is basically a big loser, an example to other states of what not to do and not to be. This reality is disguised by the fact that the state and many of its residents continue to rake in the dough because they are in the North East, near NY, and because of their long history in the Northeast, cradle of US Power and Money. That's it -- there is no other reason. That's all its got and all it does is spend that down, grow desperate, get more abusive, and drive people and businesses away.
Let's look at this from a technology perspective. When I have Amazon ads on my site in New Mexico and a customer clicks on the ad, they are literally redirected to the Amazon site where ever it is located with a cookie saying where they came from. All my site did was refer them to the Amazon site. The actual transaction takes place on the Amazon site. Hence the sale did not take place on my site.
If this is taxable, then why can't the state demand I pay sales tax if I verbally tell someone to go to the Amazon Site and place an order? The only difference is that if I refer them electronically, Amazon knows who sent them. If I refer them verbally, then Amazon does not know who referred them unless they call Amazon on the phone and say, "Hey, Mike sent me."
From a technology perspective, Amazon is right. These outside states are trying to collect sales taxes from Amazon on sales that are not made in their state.
Remarkbox