You have CA paying with IOUs when I look at my business I’ve got more affiliates in CA then any other state.

I’ve seen what they have proposed, Each state has their own tax. worst idea ever. that means as a merchant i have to learn 52 different tax laws. and some states like NY have state/county/section/burro break down taxes. what the hell? really?

There are some who are lobbying for a unified sales tax. where it would be a set percentage. and some would go to federal and the rest to the state. that way states would benefit equally. And states would fight over where affiliates would be based out of instead of chasing them off to Idaho or Canada.

This needs to be done fast before states individual policies take permanent foot hold and ruin a chance for a unified tax.
http://www.cj.c...ternet_tax.html

although if states do a tax of their own and then we do a unified tax… talk about double dipping… its not going to work well if we let it go like this. You will see a boom of E-business in places that have none of these laws in place or it will all move to Canada…

Now that Amazon has decided to not do business through affiliates in NC (which no law says they have too) NC loses the income tax revenue that these affiliates were paying on their earnings. Also, the affiliates, which are small businesses, now may have to close their businesses creating further burden on NC and the entitlements tax payers pay for.

Like the music royalty tax XM/Sirius customer have to pay and the Federal Excise tax we pay on our phone and electric bills, this tax needs to be regulated at the federal level. It may even need to be a constitutional amendment. That would require a 2/3 vote to be ratified.

To sum it up: not against the tax, against the unfairness of the tax with respect to affiliates.

I also got burned by this. I was making a nice paycheck from from Amazon and I ALWAYS reported and paid my income taxes. What I believe will happen is that affiliates and consumers will see that they are being charged this sales tax and probably try to choose another retailer. I am not happy about NC trying to collect the tax. I think that this is a huge hassle for everyone. But, if states see this as absolutely necessary they will do it because they do not see any other option. I say choose another affiliate marketing program where Amazon isn’t going to short their affiliates. Let’s think about this. You partnered with Amazon and are giving Amazon the benefit of the doubt to drop ship products your web site viewers are interested in. But, Amazon is not the only game in town, there are thousands of affilate programs out there. I say fine, I’m going to another affiliate like Ebay for my products. It really is that easy and Amazon is going to wind up creating a bunch of competitors in these states where they used to be partners. Go figure! They just killed one of the smartest marketing ideas in history. Hope Apple doesn’t pull out on the deal NC wants to give because they passed a new tax collection law. Oh, wait, they want to give Apple millions in tax breaks but not Amazon. Oops! http://www.busi...s/D992BUS80.htm

We are writing from the Amazon Associates Program to notify you that your Associates account has been closed as of June 26, 2009. This is a direct result of the unconstitutional tax collection scheme expected to be passed any day now by the North Carolina state legislature (the General Assembly) and signed by the governor.

You want no taxes? Go to Ethiopia, the libertarian dream state. All you need is to be a really good shot.

* You have disability insurance? ( You are 4x more likely to be disabled than die before age 65 )
* You have earthquake insurance?
* You have high quality medical insurance with no life-time cap?

Congratulations if you do. 1/4 of the US population does not.

You of course made sure since the moment you were born to make sure you had all this insurance, because you took complete responsibility for yourself.

Now lets talk about those kids who have nothing better to do because you have shutdown opportunities for them:
* a little breaking and entering action to supplement the income.
* no need to worry about police because you do not want to pay for them.
* no need to worry about prison because that is a waste.
* eventually they do get out of prison if you want to pay for that ( and they repeat the same cycle)

And of course with your attitude I suspect that you think that you will still be able to get high-quality workers for your business? I am curious where they will come from since you are not willing to pay for their education? Or maybe you run a McDonalds and you prefer dumb workers?

Re: WA — last I checked no income tax, so you are whining why?

Re: Charities — no they don’t begin to cover the needs. And I be willing to bet you don’t give either.

* Why should I subsidize day care?

* Why should I subsidize pre/post-school day programs?

* Why should I subsidize business grants? There already is the Small Business Administration

*Unemployment insurance in WA they take out of your paycheck, employers probably contribute too. In FL I believe it’s the same or employers contribute to the fund

My real estate taxes already go to fire, police, county hospital, schools. Add in sales tax (nearly 10% in WA) gas tax, 20% cell phone tax, 13%+ communications tax, water, trash… How much more?

There are charities out there that do a great job and have social programs, job retraining, counseling and what not.

Interesting choices. Since Microsoft is a more “valuable” company does this mean Microsoft is more valuable that California or the entire United States?

Color me … curious….

Seems like this concept falls apart as soon as a more efficient competitor decides that they do not need to raise prices in the wake of a tax increase.

So one business decides that they are going to do “pass on the tax in the form of higher taxes” and another business decides not to.

What does your economic theories say then?

“No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports”

Article I Section 8: “Powers of Congress”:

“to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;” (Interstate Commerce Clause)

However, these clauses do not prohibit a state from taxing products of other states; the clauses prohibit a state imposing tariffs on goods entering and transiting a state; and prohibit preferential taxing to favor one state’s goods over another. So California cannot establish its own customs. Nor can california apply a tax on apples from Michigan but not on apples from Washington.

However, California can establish a Agricultural inspection station.

As an additional FYI, this is the reason a state cannot use eminent domain against a railroad. A railroad is regulated by Congress under the interstate commerce clause.

These “NC Politicians” don’t give a cracker about NC citizens since most of them are probably not North Carolina natives anyway.

“State governments assess “emergency” tax measures to get quick money because they can’t bear the thought of making the tough choices necessary to cut spending”

Hmmm… so in hard economic times, when a social safety net is that much more important you want states to cut funding.

So from your perspective:

* Unemployment insurance
* Job retraining programs
* Community Colleges
* 4-year public universities
* subsidized day care
* subsidized elder care
* Section 8 housing assistance
* School lunch programs
* morning/afternoon pre-/post- school day programs
* community grants for starting a new business

Should all be cut.

Someone who has just been laid off can try to job hunt and compete with 500 applicants hoping they can keep their head above water economically;

Or

they can return to school and complete their AA degree or the BS, or get their MBA using the above listed services to make it economically possible.

By providing these services, a state enables their citizens to be more valuable and more productive when the economy turns around.

The single mom ( or dad ) may start the downturn with no college education. Through the services listed above, this single parent could end up with a degree that will enable them to double their income. Or give them the skills to start their own business.

Yet you make the interesting choice that states should remove this opportunity to turn economic lemons into lemonade.

Interesting. I am curious why you think that a less-educated workforce is a good choice?

I should add that Herbert Hoover was wildly successful at cutting government spending in the Great Depression. I am curious do you think this was successful for him? If not how is the same approach going to be successful today?