Amazon Ends Affiliate Program in Illinois

Good for Amazon. It isn't their fault that the B&M retailers got stuck in the past and continued with outdated business models. If a e-tailer can minimize their costs and pass on the savings to consumers, then that is a win-win for the business and the consumer. Besides, who in the world these days want to walk into a Best Buy and have some pimple faced kid try to talk to you like they actually know what they are talking about.

Since I live in Ohio, I get the best of both worlds as Amazon is right down in Kentucky as it means very fast deliveries.
 
Hulahoops said:
Seems nothing more than self interest.
Click to expand...

this is about sales tax, not income tax.

the only self interest amazon would have is not handling the tax money for the consumer..
the taxes paid will still be the consumer's money, not amazon's, paid to the state by the consumer through amazon.

sales taxes stifle the economy (though not as a whole) by slowing the spending, amazon is just trying to keep the money flowing, especially for states like California and Illinois who have extreme sales taxes. 10% to a bill can change peoples minds.
sales tax support your local and state government, which will directly affect you, they don't support your federal government which indirectly screws you. the fed will get its money! oh if only we could refuse to pay a portion of our federal taxes without getting thrown into the clink, maybe we would be more willing to pay sales tax.
 
Sales tax is the reason I tend to order things from Amazon instead of Newegg. I have to pay over 9% sales tax if I buy from Newegg. With Amazon I normally don't pay for shipping or sales tax so the price listed is the price I pay.
 
I just wish they could figure out that they need to tighten their belt sometimes. Taxes almost never go down. It is almost always up. I would complain less about them if peoples pay was keeping pace. A 5% raise when the annual inflation rate was 4% and state, federal, local, sales taxes went up 2% or more leaves people a little further behind each year. We have to live with that reality, why can't the politicians? No new fucking spending in a recession. Raising taxes will not end a recession. Government programs do not end recessions.

Meh, Amazon can do what they like. Illinois can do as they like with the jobs and tax revenue lost from this decision. Affiliates need to understand that they are only one gubernatorial signature away from losing Amazon revenues, and plan accordingly.
 
strekship said:
Sales tax is the reason I tend to order things from Amazon instead of Newegg. I have to pay over 9% sales tax if I buy from Newegg. With Amazon I normally don't pay for shipping or sales tax so the price listed is the price I pay.
Click to expand...

This. And this is why I <3 Amazon.
 
Katalysis said:
...it's not really fair to the B&M stores in Illinois who are providing jobs, paying property tax, etc. to compete with a built-in advantage like that.
Click to expand...

It has NOTHING to do with that...NEVER has.

It is the obligation of the person living and residing in that state to claim their out of state internet purchases on their taxes.

The government just wants Amazon to do it for them.
 
redmasc said:
I'm in Chicago and I'm glad big business's like amazon taking a stand. Gee, if they wanted to save money, maybe they should start cutting costs in the government sector rather than make its citizens pay for it. Patt Quinn got lucky that the previous governor got kicked out of office and he inherited the seat because he ran 2-3 times and didn't get elected in the past.
Click to expand...

I agree...Rod Blagojevich was so much more funner to hear about. :mad:
 
In Canada we have always had to pay provincial taxes on items purchased online if the online store is physically in the same province as the purchaser. Seems like the correct way to do things so don't see why Amazon have such an issue with it.
 
Gnasher said:
In Canada we have always had to pay provincial taxes on items purchased online if the online store is physically in the same province as the purchaser. Seems like the correct way to do things so don't see why Amazon have such an issue with it.
Click to expand...

Amazon isn't though, 3rd party sellers who sell through Amazon are. The states are going after Amazon though.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
Katalysis said:
Uh, all you people crying about government interfering with big business realize that other, bigger businesses wanted this to happen, right?

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110302-716584.html

http://www.appliancemagazine.com/news.php?article=1474414&zone=0&first=1
Click to expand...

Want to know something? Walmart is stuck with doing Illinois' tax collection work because they have buildings residing in that state. Of course they will compete given their disadvantaged circumstance.

And Sears is headquartered in Illinois! No wonder they hate on Amazon. But they would do the same if they were in Amazon's shoes.

This is not a case of businesses favoring government laws, but a feeling of revenge for having a disadvantage.
 
Katalysis said:
They are not backtracking. This has been the law since the SCOTUS decided in 1992 that tax could be charged on internet retailers that had a presence in that state. We've all been living with that for a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota
Click to expand...

What I mean by backtracking is actually finding ways to enforce it and make them pony up. Some e-tailers comply, others like Amazon don't want to deal with the nightmare of figuring it all out on a purchase by purchase basis.

Hence why I said, if they had started this from the beginning with a flat tax rate, this would have been avoided. Now that people are accustomed to having to pay shipping (if that, nowadays) instead of tax, it's going to be difficult to get people used to the idea of now having to pay both.
 
no matter what you do people are going to find a way to not pay sales tax. If amazon handles this situation with state taxes, people will probably start shopping online with over sea area like Hong Kong, China, and what not. Then that will total stifle our economy. There's really a no win situation, I live in CA and I know that the state is trying to push this online sales tax cause they are losing billions of dollars on online sales tax, but that would affects a lot of little company's that make a living selling online, and they don't need to be located in the US to run their business they can go out of state like a lot of the bigger company's have.
 
Kudos to Amazon for making a stand!
wink.gif
 
Illinois is adding to their "crappy politics" pile. Dead people voting, crook governor, and now this.

How much of Amazon tax revenues do they hope to get now?
 
This is very, very stupid of Illinois...

This is why most states/feds need a "technology expert" to inform lawmakers about what is the smarter option to do in a situation.

Even if this was somewhat decent to do, they are going to make PEANUTS with this. They will not make shit, honestly. I could easily bypass it anyways if I lived in Illinois!

Illinois DID NOT do their techy research with the amazon tax deal.... failures.
 
fattypants said:
Illinois is adding to their "crappy politics" pile. Dead people voting, crook governor, and now this.

How much of Amazon tax revenues do they hope to get now?
Click to expand...

Hey now, dead people voting is a long standing tradition in Illinois. Kennedy would have never been president if dead people could not vote.
 
toy4x4 said:
Why do I love this. Big Business standing up to governments.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those poor big business have it so rough in the USA. They're so oppressed. With tax shelters and rates a fraction of the regular folks. Poor guys. We should jack up taxes on the poor so we can give them more tax breaks.

If an amazon affiliate is selling to people in the state in which they (the affiliate) are located then they should pay sales tax. I pay sales tax to Amazon, I live in Seattle.

Just because a business owner puts their store front on Amazon doesn't mean they get to dodge sales tax for the state they're in. That's unfair to non-amazon net retailers in the state.

No, this is Amazon being doucehbaggy. Simple as that.
 
Dylan80 said:
This is very, very stupid of Illinois...

This is why most states/feds need a "technology expert" to inform lawmakers about what is the smarter option to do in a situation.

Even if this was somewhat decent to do, they are going to make PEANUTS with this. They will not make shit, honestly. I could easily bypass it anyways if I lived in Illinois!

Illinois DID NOT do their techy research with the amazon tax deal.... failures.
Click to expand...

LOL. Not everyone is a 1337 hax0r behind nine proxies.
 
Part of the reason I think states are struggling with declining tax revenues is simply how much of it is internet purchases - and no one really tallies up Use Tax properly for their yearly taxes.

I agree with someone else to some extent - perhaps there should be some small, tiny amount of tax on internet purchases (maybe up to 1%), federally, with the money disbursed to the states.

It'd make a big difference to struggling states. Because we do a LOT of internet purchasing that ends up basically 100% tax free.
 
Haha.

Point of view is an interesting thing.

I'm in Brazil. We pay 80% of taxes on a game, for example. That's why piracy here runs wild.

You all rage about a 10% tax and I'm jealous. Plus the fact that when Americans get a loan, any loan, they pay the same interest rate per year as we do... per month.
 
I make it a point to buy something from amazon every time I read one of these stories.
 
Steve said:
It has NOTHING to do with that...NEVER has.

It is the obligation of the person living and residing in that state to claim their out of state internet purchases on their taxes.

The government just wants Amazon to do it for them.
Click to expand...

Well if the individual isn't responsible enough to report those internet purchases, then what's the alternative? Oh well, the state it out of the money that funds everything from the roads the person drives to the schools they send their children to? That's acceptable?

Or should the government fine and penalize the majority of its citizens for not reporting these purchases? Or should the government just put the onus on Amazon and other e-tailers?

Clearly something else has to be done since the individual is not reporting these purchases in the vast majority of the cases.
 
Dreaz said:
Well if the individual isn't responsible enough to report those internet purchases, then what's the alternative? Oh well, the state it out of the money that funds everything from the roads the person drives to the schools they send their children to? That's acceptable?

Or should the government fine and penalize the majority of its citizens for not reporting these purchases? Or should the government just put the onus on Amazon and other e-tailers?

Clearly something else has to be done since the individual is not reporting these purchases in the vast majority of the cases.
Click to expand...

Clearly they are "hiring" Amazon to do their tax work for them, yet Amazon has no incentive to do this. Especially if they have no physical presence in the state.

It's not a case of "Well, the consumers aren't responsible to do it themselves, so SOMEONE needs to". The important thing to understand is that Amazon isn't responsible for it, and they shouldn't be.
 
Zerikin Loukbel said:
What they think:

Gov. Quinn said in a statement that the "law will put Illinois-based businesses on a level playing field, protect and create jobs, and help us continue to grow in the global marketplace."
Click to expand...


What really happens:

Amazon, which has opposed similar efforts in other states, informed its some 9,000 Illinois affiliates in a letter that it would terminate the program on April 15
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What he said!
 
GreenMonkey said:
I agree with someone else to some extent - perhaps there should be some small, tiny amount of tax on internet purchases (maybe up to 1%), federally, with the money disbursed to the states.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps states should end the pension gravy train and learn to live within budgets like everyone else who can't coercively extract money by force.
 
Dreaz said:
Clearly something else has to be done since the individual is not reporting these purchases in the vast majority of the cases.
Click to expand...

That is a massive assumption on your part, without one shred of proof to back it up. You know this for a fact? No. :confused:
 
Look, we all know taxes aren't "fair," how fair is sales tax?

I buy a new car. I pay sales tax.
I sell the car 2 years later, new owner pays sales tax.
He sells the car after a year or two, the new owner pays sales tax....

HOW MANY TIMES CAN THE STATE CONTINUE TO COLLECT TAX ON THE SAME ITEM?


Property taxes pay the overwhelming majority of the funding for our schools.

I have one kid in school. I pay thousands of dollars in property tax every year for the "privilege" of owning something I've already paid for. Every. Single. Year. Yay!

My neighbor pays the same amount of taxes I do (every year), he has NO kids.

The low income people living in apartments (whether or not they are on public assistance), have four kids in school and pay NO property tax.

How fair is that?

I can't believe the conversations isn't about FIGHTING BACK against taxes, forcing our publicly elected officials to cut spending...instead of fighting with each other over who should pay MORE and whole should collect FOR...the government.
 
Steve said:
Look, we all know taxes aren't "fair," how fair is sales tax?

I buy a new car. I pay sales tax.
I sell the car 2 years later, new owner pays sales tax.
He sells the car after a year or two, the new owner pays sales tax....

HOW MANY TIMES CAN THE STATE CONTINUE TO COLLECT TAX ON THE SAME ITEM?


Property taxes pay the overwhelming majority of the funding for our schools.

I have one kid in school. I pay thousands of dollars in property tax every year for the "privilege" of owning something I've already paid for. Every. Single. Year. Yay!

My neighbor pays the same amount of taxes I do (every year), he has NO kids.

The low income people living in apartments (whether or not they are on public assistance), have four kids in school and pay NO property tax.

How fair is that?

I can't believe the conversations isn't about FIGHTING BACK against taxes, forcing our publicly elected officials to cut spending...instead of fighting with each other over who should pay MORE and whole should collect FOR...the government.
Click to expand...
Heck yeah. My wife and I should be getting a discount on our property taxes for not having kids. But for some reason people who breed like rabbits get a fat $2000 paycheck for every kid. And they're using public services for their kids. And most of them don't even own property.
 
Too many taxes already. What are taxes going to fix. They will just spend it on something stupid and useless. Waste of money. When has any tax money ever been spent wisely. Glad amazon is fighting this.
 
There should be a 10% tax on EVERYTHING except food (no more state or federal income tax). That would eliminate the crying about tax cuts for the rich, poor people paying too much, etc. etc. etc.

  • The rich people buying the $100,000 cars, million dollar yachts and multi-million dollar homes are paying taxes on that, no loop holes.
  • Poor guy pays 10% on a $3,500 car and doesn't own a home.
  • Need a tax break this month? Put off buying the big screen TV, etc. etc.

No more IRS. No sliding scales, varying tax rates, etc. etc. etc. And the government would be FORCED to live within their means. You have X amount of money, that's it. MAKE IT WORK, the same way the rest of the country has to.


Imagine how simple that would be....but it will never happen because politicians will never let it happen and we won't do a damn thing about it. :(
 
Steve said:
  • The rich people buying the $100,000 cars, million dollar yachts and multi-million dollar homes are paying taxes on that, no loop holes.
Click to expand...

Rich people don't buy US made goods, they pay import tax on EU goods :)
 
Steve said:
There should be a 10% tax on EVERYTHING except food (no more state or federal income tax). That would eliminate the crying about tax cuts for the rich, poor people paying too much, etc. etc. etc.

  • The rich people buying the $100,000 cars, million dollar yachts and multi-million dollar homes are paying taxes on that, no loop holes.
  • Poor guy pays 10% on a $3,500 car and doesn't own a home.
  • Need a tax break this month? Put off buying the big screen TV, etc. etc.

No more IRS. No sliding scales, varying tax rates, etc. etc. etc. And the government would be FORCED to live within their means. You have X amount of money, that's it. MAKE IT WORK, the same way the rest of the country has to.


Imagine how simple that would be....but it will never happen because politicians will never let it happen and we won't do a damn thing about it. :(
Click to expand...
Consumption-based taxes are inherently regressive - there is a certain fundamental cost to staying alive. Those less financially well-off spend a far greater portion of their income and in many cases are unable to save anything. Compare that to a rich man who can pour the majority of his income into investments and savings - he's hit far less by taxes.
 
Arainach said:
Consumption-based taxes are inherently regressive - there is a certain fundamental cost to staying alive. Those less financially well-off spend a far greater portion of their income and in many cases are unable to save anything. Compare that to a rich man who can pour the majority of his income into investments and savings - he's hit far less by taxes.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Every time someone says "flat tax," it only helps the richest 1% of Americans.

Instead, eliminate income taxes for anyone making less than $100,000/year, then start taxing income beyond that at an aggressively progressive rate. Make $101,000/year? The first $100,000 is tax-free, and the $1,000 additional is taxed at 25%, so you net $100,725 net. That's great!
 
Thug Esquire said:
Thank you. Every time someone says "flat tax," it only helps the richest 1% of Americans.

Instead, eliminate income taxes for anyone making less than $100,000/year, then start taxing income beyond that at an aggressively progressive rate. Make $101,000/year? The first $100,000 is tax-free, and the $1,000 additional is taxed at 25%, so you net $100,725 net. That's great!
Click to expand...
$100,750 net. Typo!
 
Amazon needs to go throw a bunch of tea in the Boston Harbor.... ooohhhh think of the press it would generate... :D
 
Arainach said:
Those less financially well-off spend a far greater portion of their income and in many cases are unable to save anything.
Click to expand...


Thug Esquire said:
Thank you. Every time someone says "flat tax," it only helps the richest 1% of Americans.
Click to expand...


Interesting. Sources? I hear these arguments but I never hear anyone ever back them up with the stats.


The only thing I ever see about "The richest 1% of Americans" is that they pay almost all of the taxes in our country. The FACTS are that the top 5% pay more than the other 95%. And people in the "top 5%" aren't exactly what you'd call "rich" at less than $160k per year.

The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top