On 2010-03-12 10:48 , P. J. Alling wrote:
On 3/12/2010 12:29 PM, steve harley wrote:
On 2010-03-12 10:11 , P. J. Alling wrote:
[...] But hell who pays
attention to that musty old document these days.
well, since the focus in the law is on whether Amazon (or whichever
other corpse) does or does not have a business presence in the state,
it seems obvious the crafters of this law had the constitution in
mind [...]
Perhaps, but the affiliate is the one responsible for paying and
reporting the Tax not Amazon. The state is requiring Amazon, an actor
with no "real" presence under the states jurisdiction, to take
responsibility for an entity that's nothing more than a sub contractor.
The upshot is now the State will lose even indirect revenue from these
transaction, since no transactions will take place.
my point was only that it's not really a lack of attention to the
constitution -- the legislators tried to come up with something
constitutional, but many people seem to disagree; whether it was a good
move is another question, but the petit-mob reaction is to conflate all
these issues
personally, whatever the outcome of this case, now is the watershed time
for resolving the "tax-free" status of internet sales in the US
Amazon chose a strategy which recruited a bunch of essentially selfish
people to its cause; i don't think the crux for most of them is whether
it's constitutional, they will latch onto any argument that gets them
more money
i live in Colorado, by the way
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
