What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
154 Comments
- ultimate_ed, on 01/13/2009, -4/+92The government is just determined to kill ecommerce. I wonder if Amazon will end up dropping their affiliate program in states where this law is enacted. That gets them out of the grip of this law.....and also put a blow to the affiliates in that state. Nice job there, New York.
- milarepa, on 01/14/2009, -3/+65God damn it!
In NY we have one of the highest average incomes in the US. We also have THE highest tax rate and forget it if you are a NYC resident, you have a god damn brutal city tax.
But still the NY state government is STILL BROKE! They get MORE money per person than any other state and still manage to run up a multi-BILLION deficit.
And how do they propose to solve this problem? Tax us MORE! This state is so stupid. - SirTheGuy, on 01/13/2009, -4/+64While I do agree that sharing the tax burden is necessary, I agree with Amazon's defense. They aren't even based there; why should they have to collect taxes? If they had servers or offices there, sure, I understand that, no big deal. In fact, I think Amazon sees it the same way. That's like Canada telling a company based in Mexico that they need to start paying Canadian Taxes because people in Canada buy Mexican products; it's absurd (as is my analogy)!
- evilbob333, on 01/13/2009, -4/+49I can't help but notice that residents of New York are legally obligated to pay sales tax, but the politicians are going to make Amazon collect? I think the better solution to Amazon would be to send New York a list of customers and purchase amounts and tell them to collect their own damn tax.
- cubicledrone, on 01/14/2009, -1/+32"No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state."
Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 9. - SpykerSpeed, on 01/14/2009, -2/+26The power to tax is the power to destroy.
- Ewfah, on 01/14/2009, -2/+23New York State are bloodsuckers.
- schwit, on 01/13/2009, -2/+23This will get to the SCOTUS where it will(hopefully) get overturned. New York and other states have no concept of cutting back or saying "Hey, we just can't afford it at this time".
I would also like to see Amazon forbid New York businesses from being affiliates. - cubicledrone, on 01/14/2009, -2/+22Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States: "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state."
Black-letter law. - xenex11, on 01/14/2009, -1/+20HA HA, I live in Oregon where we have no sales tax...Suck It New York!
- tinkafoo, on 01/14/2009, -1/+19It's called a tariff, right? Which is illegal in interstate commerce, right?
There we go. - muledoggie, on 01/14/2009, -0/+18It's not like Americans don't pay enough taxes. RIght? Now states can tax businesses not even located there. Wow! Bad precedent.
- MCBROCK, on 01/14/2009, -0/+17In related news ...
New Jersey PO Boxes get really popular. - fadetoone, on 01/14/2009, -0/+17HA HA, I live in Texas where we have no state income tax...Suck it Oregon!
- darkecho, on 01/14/2009, -1/+17If Amazon / other retailers lose I think they should boycott NY sales. Yes its more than likely a bad business practice however it will let them (NY) and other states no not to ***** with Amazon on this. A federal tax would make sense however a state forcing you to tax when you have no physical business there is crap.
If I were Amazon I would post a notice for any IP that is coming from NY explaining whats going on. This way it would piss off their customers and they would bitch, bitch and bitch (in theory). Since politicians will do anything for a vote it could kill this whole thing.
If Amazon blows this up and makes a huge deal out of it, I would have to say good for them. - tgc1, on 01/14/2009, -1/+17They should. It would send a strong message to New York governments. Ie. "OIkay, you don't want to play fair, that's fine. Now you get nothing."
- Richandler, on 01/14/2009, -2/+18There was no serious reason to for sales tax on Amazon other than to exert power.
- milarepa, on 01/14/2009, -0/+16God damn it.
- rebrad, on 01/14/2009, -1/+16Sucks to live in New York.
- superkendall, on 01/14/2009, -2/+16It's not a "loop whole", it's a simple fact that if you aren't using up the state resources why should you pay for taxes in that state?
Fed Ex delivers what you order and as long as they are paying taxes to help pay for roads, that's as far as it should go.
It would sure be nice if Amazon would refuse to sell to New York residents. How long do you think the elected officials would last against a recall if the people really got angry about something? - Aphelion27, on 01/14/2009, -0/+13Since the law only applies to Amazon because Amazon has an affiliate program with New York residents as affiliates, couldn't Amazon simple drop all New York residents off the affiliate program and thus not be affected by this any longer? Isn't this was Overstock did?
- kalvinb, on 01/14/2009, -1/+14This will get tossed out. Interstate commerce laws are what keep this type of thing from happening. Only the federal government can collect taxes across state lines. How does New York intend to enforce its state laws on an entity that doesn't reside in that state?
If an affiliate is based in New York then that affiliate must collect the taxes for sales because they owe those state taxes on their sales at the end of the year. And if they don't collect from the customer it comes out of their pocket.
It's not up to Amazon to collect and pay those taxes for the affiliate. - cubicledrone, on 01/14/2009, -2/+15Taxes on out of state purchases are unconstitutional.
- ProfBagelwood, on 01/14/2009, -0/+12That's a very good point. How exactly does New York intend to enforce this judge's ruling if Amazon doesn't bend over for them?
- heavyd14, on 01/14/2009, -1/+12Thankfully smart sites like newegg.com gave NY the finger and are refusing to collect NY sales tax.
- KaivenTor, on 01/14/2009, -0/+10This type of BS among other things, is the reason I chose to get out of NY. Overtaxed population, businesses, you name it. The government in NY gets anything it can get it's hands on, then squanders it. Not much of a wonder they went broke before most of the other states. This is only going to continue there as long as the government continues to operate as it has.
If anyone wants a great example of how big government and out of control social programs can mismanage and cripple a state, NY is it. - mst3kcrow, on 01/14/2009, -0/+9HA HA, I live in Wisconsin where....oh...*****.
- inactive, on 01/15/2009, -0/+9thats exactly why high taxes on corporations and business's suck.... NY taxes amazon, amazon stops their affiliate program for NY residents, Those residents don't make any income , Since the NY affiliates aren't making any money NY can't tax the income they would of had and losses out on more tax revenues, not to mention the fact that sales to NY drop as it's more expensive to buy from amazon now... so everyone loses, people in NY can't get what they want for a good price, other people lose a stream of income they used to have, and the state makes less revenue since it doesn't get income tax from the NY affiliates and people stopped buying online .
HEY heres an idea lets tax corporations even more because that will solve all our problems!!!!! - inactive, on 01/14/2009, -1/+10And they have no right to tax Amazon as it does not reside within their jurisdiction. No sales occurred within NY, they should receive no money.
- kmb1794, on 01/14/2009, -0/+8I think part of why you should pay sales tax is operating in a state. If the business isn't located in the state of NY, why should people have to pay taxes on that? It doesn't make any sense.
- jon31rm, on 01/14/2009, -0/+8IRS?
- brokensystem, on 01/14/2009, -0/+8Both of them are well deserving.
- larfus, on 01/14/2009, -1/+8I wish the government would start learning how to manage the money they do get from taxes instead of creating more taxes to overcome their mismanagement of the money already there.
- flashpointbob, on 01/14/2009, -0/+7I already pay sales tax on Amazon and iTunes. That is one of the pleasures of living in Indiana. They started an internet tax a long time ago.
- KaivenTor, on 01/14/2009, -0/+7@evilbob333: It's unenforcable. NY residents only pay sales tax when neccesary, not very many people fully disclose or even bother to keep track of the taxes they should pay for out of state purchases (like most states, I imagine). Thus the gov has no choice but to try and obligate the company because they can get the records.
- odigity, on 01/15/2009, -0/+7I live in New Hampshire, with neither a sales tax nor an income tax.
Got liberty? http://freestateproject.org/ - Hermmunster, on 01/14/2009, -0/+7It wont' last. Appeals, adjustments to the state constitution, etc.
- brokensystem, on 01/14/2009, -0/+6Unfortunately they're not alone, like our federal government our state governments are loaded with the same type of arrogant know it all people who blow money every way they can, especially if it helps them or their friends and campaign contributors. You can be sure if this law holds there will be a flood of states jumping on the band wagon.
- kingUssop, on 01/14/2009, -1/+7Amazon must be regretting flaunting how they were the only successful company this Christmas about now.
- inactive, on 01/15/2009, -1/+7However Section 10 does say "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports", so depending on how imports/exports are defined (i.e. if they include interstate goods) then it's also pretty obvious.
- Nerys, on 01/15/2009, -0/+6"Taxes on out of state purchases are unconstitutional."
your all wrong technically (except odigity). Your applying the constitution incorrectly.
What this means is if a company in Florida sells a product to YOU in NY FLORIDA can not charge you Florida sales tax for interstate purchases.
NY CAN!
IE technically everything you buy online your supposed to pay your HOME STATE sales tax on. IE your supposed to fill them into your equivalent of a 1040 and pay the sale tax if you did not pay it at the time of purchase.
That part of the constitution was made so ONE STATE could not "tax" another states citizens purchases that are interstate IE double taxation since you still owe the same tax for YOUR state on that purchase.
Its just not feasible to enforce (you paying your state tax on your interstate purchases) so they never have. Till now. Since its all digitized its suddenly "feasible" to do this.
The problem is a matter of the 4th amendment. IE its the responsibility of the CITIZEN to pay the taxes and its a violation of the 4th amendment to make amazon "send" the information to the states (ie your purchase history)
this all assumes amazon has no physical presence in NY.
If they do have a presence in NY then that presence is responsible for collection NY sales tax.
The only way around it would be to not have a presence there and do ALL your business out of a state without sales tax.
Even then TECHNICALLY your supposed to pay your sales tax on your interstate purchases.
For someone as large as amazon that would be difficult (to work all out of one location) - clickmyface, on 01/14/2009, -1/+7Wow. It really says those words exactly. Why are we even having this conversation then?
- CJArgus, on 01/14/2009, -3/+9***** THE RIAA
- clharlem149, on 01/15/2009, -0/+6I am state?
- jayselle, on 01/15/2009, -0/+5Perhaps you should quit electing ultra liberal morons?
- simplyintricate, on 01/15/2009, -0/+5Article 1, section 9 refers to limitations on congressional powers. I'm unsure if this qualifies as limitations on state powers.
- odigity, on 01/15/2009, -1/+6You see two athletes. The first has an iron ball shackled to his foot, the second does not. You rightly decide that this is not a fair competition.
...and your solution is to shackle a ball to the second one's foot?
How about we remove the ***** shackles from the first guy? Taxation is theft, executed at the point of a gun by the state. You can pretend it's necessary (thought there are excellent arguments against this position), but you certainly can't pretend it's moral. - odigity, on 01/15/2009, -0/+5@cubicledrone is correct. The whole purpose of what has come to be called "the interstate commerce clause" was solely to prevent states from raising tarrifs against each other and restricting trade. That's it.
Now, because of corrupt judges and legislators who don't care about the law, they've "reinterpreted" the clause to allow them to pass any law regarding anything that might cross state borders. They've used it to, in some instances, regulate what kind of vegetables you grow in your garden for your consumption because in theory they could be sold and thus affect interstate commerce.
About 90% of our government's current activities is based on this deliberate reinterpretation of a simple and limited clause. A clause meant to simply prevent the states from interfering with free trade, not to enable the Fed to completely control nearly all the actions of every person in the country. - odigity, on 01/15/2009, -0/+5I guess that's the way it is in our society. Success and productivity is punished, failure and incompetence rewarded.
That's the inevitable result of treating violence (the state) as moral. The good suffer, and the wicked prosper, when evil is called good. -
Show 51 - 100 of 164 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is