First N.C, then R.I... Now California?

[mr2monster]

I searched, but didn't find anything blatantly stating this but I am a photographer so I read Ken Rockwells stuff quite often and noticed this this morning.

Thought I'd pass it along.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/ab178.htm

In case you haven't heard, the state of California is considering legislation which could end affilate programs.

We need to do everything you can to prevent this. Amazon just cut off the program in North Carolina as of June 27th, 2009 because of similar legislation.

Thank God I live in AZ...

[worlok]

OMG the useless business unfriendly politicians need to start hanging from lamp posts. WTF is wrong with these greedy politicos. I live in NJ and I do not put it past the corrupt bunch running this state to try that.

I wonder if you can buy a mailing address in a friendly state and use that or incorporate in a friendly state or territory and use that?

[worlok]

It seems like this organization is our lobbyist of choice. Thinking of joining. Performance Marketing Alliance Anti-Affiliate Legislation

[TLTheLiberator]

What do they want?

Revenue? ( can't blame them there )

Kill affiliate marketing?

What did NC want??

TL

[worlok]

They need to cut their budgets and their pay. My employer cut my pay by 5%, state workers and bureaucrats should also go on a diet.

BTW according to this post many more states considering this and probably more to follow.

Performance Marketing Alliance Blog Archive Anti-Affiliate Legislation Update

I only hope that in 2010 the Congressional elections throw a lot of these bums out on their behinds and put the state thieves on notice. A Federal law or Federal strong arming can stop this. All they have to do it threaten to cut off Federal aid which worked in the past to stop Internet Sales taxation. The problem now is that the tax happy bunch is running things so don't expect Federal help right now.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

What do they want?

Revenue? ( can't blame them there )

If revenue is what they want, then killing affiliate sales will have the opposite effect.

California has an income tax, right?

So, Californians that earn income through affiliate sales pay taxes on it.

But, California decides it wants more, so it wants to collect sales taxes on top of that.

In order to avoid that, those with affiliate programs that don't already have to collect California sales tax will simply drop their Californian affiliates.

End result is that California does not collect sales taxes on those affiliate sales and loses existing revenues from income taxes from affiliates who get dropped.

[talfighel]

Kill Affiliate Programs there. What in the world are these politicians thinking. This is like saying that Network Marketing is no longer legit in so and so state or so and so province here in Canada.

This is just insane.

[preacher]

Ok, I'm new to some of this...where could I find more info, especially since I live in N.C. I just started working as an affiliate on some programs...is this meaning they..(the owners of the programs) can't legally operate out of N.C. or what? Haven't seen or heard this anywhere else. Hope I just slightly confused!

[Nightengale]

You're right: ALL of Congress needs to be thrown out -- every last one of them -- and new people brought in.

I wonder if a lawsuit against the states for illegal legislation would make them take notice. As someone else pointed out here in another thread, affiliates are just salesmen on commission. It's the company or person putting the product or service out into the marketplace who's responsible for taxes on sales.

It strikes me as anti-capitalistic and therefore anti-American. Killing entrepreneurial activity like this seems VERY shortsighted.

But who would be the one to challenge this? The FTC? The SBA? I dunno.

Michelle

[Aronya]

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

If revenue is what they want, then killing affiliate sales will have the opposite effect.

--snip--

End result is that California does not collect sales taxes on those affiliate sales and loses existing revenues from income taxes from affiliates who get dropped.

History has shown us that this has no bearing on what will happen. Letting government run health care systems results in poor health care, but we're cruising down THAT road anyway, top down & radio blasting.

[worlok]

Well, look at new York state. I just found out that New York has lost much recreational fishing over the last decade or so. They were thinking up ways to get more people fishing. Just this last April the New York Legislature and their new idiot Governor signed a law that raised the fishing license fee from $19-$29 (or so) for residents and from $40-$70 for non residents. Is that likely to increase the recreational fishing in New York? Dumb dumb dumb.

So I wouldn't be looking for logic to win out.

[raiko]

There is really nobody on our side so I don't think that it will get meaningfully challenged. As for throwing them out of office, it sounds nice but just doesn't usually happen. Each representative is from a particular district and their constituents in that district usually think that their Rep is great and it's everyone else Rep that is incompetent. If I live in SoCal I cannot vote to throw out a rep from N.C.

Plus many people vote solely upon one or two ideological positions that don't have anything to do with taxes or the economic environment. Class warfare abounds these days and it will have a large long term impact on our standard of living. Unfortunately having followed politics for 30 years I don't really see anything changing.

As mentioned previously, once this type of legislation is approved in one state it will spread across other states. There is no escape. States want more revenue. States ALWAYS want more revenue. And, they will spend ALL of their revenue then need more. It only ends when they cannot squeeze anymore out of the tax paying sector at which time some sort of third world type equilibrium will be reached. Cynical I know. Sorry.

[worlok]

Doesn't John the successful Adsense site guy live in Cali??

[worlok]

We need the Federal pendulum to swing the other way and the Feds can strong arm the states. They tried many times to make Internet sales taxes and the Feds always stopped it. The problem now is that the Feds in power now are pro tax.

[MichaelHiles]

It's not a partisanship issue either. Both sides of the political spectrum have the opinion that they can just help themselves to whatever they desire.

Regardless of what the .gov thinks, they are not producers, they are consumers. When the producers decide to simply stop producing, they .gov consumers suffer the same fate as the rest of the consumers. They starve.

Producers have and will always make the rules in society.

[worlok]

Partially true. Partially untrue. The bottom line is that one side can and will use the anti tax position to GAIN votes, and I always vote for that side.

There is another factor here, and that is that Amazon and others can just pull out because they don't want to bother collecting sales tax. Should they be allowed to do that? I'm all for freedom, but I am more for OUR freedom to do business under a program than for them to abandon us because some idiot politicians want to raise taxes.

Also, how can Amazon do business in all of these tax happy European and other countries? (no offense to those who live there, but you have high taxes and social welfare states is what I mean)

[MichaelHiles]

Originally Posted by worlok

Partially true. Partially untrue. The bottom line is that one side can and will use the anti tax position to GAIN votes, and I always vote for that side.

There is another factor here, and that is that Amazon and others can just pull out because they don't want to bother collecting sales tax. Should they be allowed to do that? I'm all for freedom, but I am more for OUR freedom to do business under a program than for them to abandon us because some idiot politicians want to raise taxes.

Also, how can Amazon do business in all of these tax happy European and other countries? (no offense to those who live there, but you have high taxes and social welfare states is what I mean)

WHAT? You can't play free market and then suggest things like forcing Amazon to do business a certain way.

And the politicians who pander to anti-tax voters are just as duplicitous as the ones that pander to welfare queens.

One has to realize that government employees and those who directly benefit from government spending are the REAL third political party, albeit a silent one, and the other two major parties spend most of their time pandering to that big quiet one. Therefore, there will never be a true cut in budget and tax by any politician that wants to return to office in the next election -- all the way down to the local county commissioner who has to kiss the FOP's butt to get endorsements and campaign $$.

but I digress... Nobody cares about these things when they go to the polls anyway. The masses want idols and rock stars - not frugality and common sense.

[CDarklock]

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

End result is that California does not collect sales taxes on those affiliate sales and loses existing revenues from income taxes from affiliates who get dropped.

That's not the actual end result.

1. Affiliate dropped from program.
2. Affiliate loses income.
3. Affiliate replaces income.
4. California collects income tax.

In general, everyone making money as an affiliate is going to make money some other way if they can't be an affiliate. But not all affiliate programs will end, and not all affiliates will drop out, and California will begin collecting sales tax on a nonzero number of affiliate sales. It's actually a net positive for California no matter how many affiliate programs are terminated.

[worlok]

Originally Posted by MichaelHiles

WHAT? You can't play free market and then suggest things like forcing Amazon to do business a certain way.

And the politicians who pander to anti-tax voters are just as duplicitous as the ones that pander to welfare queens.

One has to realize that government employees and those who directly benefit from government spending are the REAL third political party, albeit a silent one, and the other two major parties spend most of their time pandering to that big quiet one. Therefore, there will never be a true cut in budget and tax by any politician that wants to return to office in the next election -- all the way down to the local county commissioner who has to kiss the FOP's butt to get endorsements and campaign $$.

Listen up. I don't do blind ideology nor do I stick to certain ideals. I do what is right for me, because no one else will.

I merely threw out the forcing Amazon to do the business because I am personally sick of not only being pissed on by government, but also by big companies. When is someone going to stick up for me?

It was rhetorical more than anything, and I still don't understand how this works. Is this because they don't want to collect sales taxes? Does that mean they simply won't sell to residents of California and those other states?? If not, then why pick on affiliates? It makes no sense to me.

Take health care. You can call it socialism, but single payer (Medicare for all) would require a government roll, but it would be pro business as it would take the burden of health insurance off the employers AND make US workers more attractive globally. You can usually frame things in a multitude of ways.

So, I am still a bit confused as to why affiliates are the sacrificial lambs here...

[ptone]

Originally Posted by worlok

So, I am still a bit confused as to why affiliates are the sacrificial lambs here...

Because the current law states that if a company does not have a physical location in North Carolina, then the company does not have to collect sales tax from residents of North Carolina that buy its goods. The proposed law states that an affiliate living in North Carolina is equal to Amazon having a physical location in North Carolina, therefore, Amazon will have to collect sales tax from purchases made by North Carolina residents.

Its easier for Amazon to cancel its affiliates than to collect sales tax for the state.

[Wakunahum]

Originally Posted by worlok

So, I am still a bit confused as to why affiliates are the sacrificial lambs here...

It was either cut the affiliates or charge EVERY sale in the state sales tax.

They probably figured the loss in affiliate revenue was less than the loss in sales that would cost 7-10% more due to the taxes.

[Mike Hill]

Looks like Canada might become a hot bed for affiliate programs and affiliate marketers... YEAH!

Product creation anyone?

Mike Hill

[worlok]

Originally Posted by ptone

Because the current law states that if a company does not have a physical location in North Carolina, then the company does not have to collect sales tax from residents of North Carolina that buy its goods. The proposed law states that an affiliate living in North Carolina is equal to Amazon having a physical location in North Carolina, therefore, Amazon will have to collect sales tax from purchases made by North Carolina residents.

Its easier for Amazon to cancel its affiliates than to collect sales tax for the state.

Okay, that makes sense. Well, that is TOTALLY unconstitutional. The Amazon affiliates are not employees but independent contractors. Anyone know the ins and outs of independent contractors? If they are not employees and operate out of their own locations and pay for their own promotional stuff then the states are clearly wrong here, overreaching, and basically acting like a mafia organization.

The right lobbyist organization can take them to the State and Federal Supreme Courts over this.

This is total bullcrap these lecherous sleezy state politicians are trying to pull. Stupid mafia lowlife state politicians. They make Tony Soprano look honest.

[worlok]

Originally Posted by Mike Hill

Looks like Canada might become a hot bed for affiliate programs and affiliate marketers... YEAH!

Mike Hill

I know that you are most likely joking, but it ain't funny, dude.

[TrishOleary]

Hawaii Governor Vetoes Amazon Tax Law and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also vetoed similar legislation that would have forced online retailers to collect and pay taxes on their affiliate programs within the state.

Hawaii Governor Vetoes Amazon Tax Law | WebProNews

This sure made me feel a little better since I live in San Diego.

[ptone]

Originally Posted by worlok

Well, that is TOTALLY unconstitutional.

That's the general consensus.

I thought that some time back, the Supreme Court already ruled this unconstitutional when states try to force catalog sales companies to collect sales tax. I suppose the states are using affiliates as a way around this.

Does anyone know if Avon reps have to collect sales tax from their customers? This seems to be a good parallel to how affiliate programs are set-up.

[worlok]

Originally Posted by TrishOleary

Hawaii Governor Vetoes Amazon Tax Law and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also vetoed similar legislation that would have forced online retailers to collect and pay taxes on their affiliate programs within the state.

Hawaii Governor Vetoes Amazon Tax Law | WebProNews

This sure made me feel a little better since I live in San Diego.

Yeah, hopefully for you "Ahnold" can terminate that thing before it becomes law.

[worlok]

Originally Posted by ptone

That's the general consensus.

I thought that some time back, the Supreme Court already ruled this unconstitutional when states try to force catalog sales companies to collect sales tax. I suppose the states are using affiliates as a way around this.

Does anyone know if Avon reps have to collect sales tax from their customers? This seems to be a good parallel to how affiliate programs are set-up.

It could be an ace in the hole. The more that you can prove that others get under the radar and affiliates are being wrongly targeted, the better chances of killing this stuff. Seems though that the people in NC, RI, are screwed though.

Are there any states that let you incorporate without a physical presence?

[Steve Peters Benn]

I'm not from the USA - but doesn't Nevada - or didn't they used to - I'm sure Robert Kiosaki said so at one of his Rich Dad seminars.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by worlok

Are there any states that let you incorporate without a physical presence?

Not that I know of, but the solution is to hire and pay an agent within the state to act as your representative.

[worlok]

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

Not that I know of, but the solution is to hire and pay an agent within the state to act as your representative.

Or if you make enough money rent a small office there..... Need money and some measure of success for that. Thinking of Delaware although ironic since Biden is from there.....

[Gclunis]

I don't understand why they would do that. I mean affiliate sales aren't a problem, they get products sold faster, and they provide a service by getting the product in the face of the internet shopper. Whats so wrong with that?

[Wakunahum]

Originally Posted by Gclunis

I don't understand why they would do that. I mean affiliate sales aren't a problem, they get products sold faster, and they provide a service by getting the product in the face of the internet shopper. Whats so wrong with that?

Quite honestly the politicians aren't thinking about affiliate sales and probably most of them couldn't describe what an affiliate is or which new laws have effected affiliates.

They probably just found that amazon has some sort of presence in the state therefore are trying to tax them to raise money. The implications of what these laws have done and will do were probably never actually considered.

I don't agree with these laws, but I don't think there was something malicious done or they were trying to target the little guy in their state.

[ptone]

Originally Posted by Gclunis

I don't understand why they would do that. I mean affiliate sales aren't a problem, they get products sold faster, and they provide a service by getting the product in the face of the internet shopper. Whats so wrong with that?

Its a Cost vs. Benefits analysis. The benefits you mentioned do not outweigh the costs of collecting sales taxes for states.

It also a matter of principle. Amazon and others believe the new law would be unconstitutional and Amazon has decided it does not want to participate in unconstitutional schemes forced upon them by state legislatures.

[ptone]

Originally Posted by Wakunahum

but I don't think there was something malicious done or they were trying to target the little guy in their state.

Really? Just look at what state governments and the U.S. government are doing right now and have been doing for years. If you took a really hard look then I think you might would want to retract that part of your statement.

[MichaelHiles]

Originally Posted by worlok

Listen up. I don't do blind ideology nor do I stick to certain ideals. I do what is right for me, because no one else will.

I merely threw out the forcing Amazon to do the business because I am personally sick of not only being pissed on by government, but also by big companies. When is someone going to stick up for me?

It was rhetorical more than anything, and I still don't understand how this works. Is this because they don't want to collect sales taxes? Does that mean they simply won't sell to residents of California and those other states?? If not, then why pick on affiliates? It makes no sense to me.

Take health care. You can call it socialism, but single payer (Medicare for all) would require a government roll, but it would be pro business as it would take the burden of health insurance off the employers AND make US workers more attractive globally. You can usually frame things in a multitude of ways.

So, I am still a bit confused as to why affiliates are the sacrificial lambs here...

There's a massive amount of money moving through this "interconnected series of tubes" (a politician's description of the internet, remember?). Anytime big money is changing hands, the .gov is going to be there with their grubby mitts out. They don't see you as "the little guy". They see you as one of many players in a giant pool of capital, and they're hungry for cash to satisfy all the commitments.

[worlok]

Originally Posted by ptone

Really? Just look at what state governments and the U.S. government are doing right now and have been doing for years. If you took a really hard look then I think you might would want to retract that part of your statement.

I don't see a conspiracy either. I am fuming mad at it, but I really believe it's just greed. They want the taxes and they are trying any way they can to get the taxes. The states have tried many times to get Internet sales taxes and failed. What scares me is that in the past the Feds said no, but I don't trust Team Obama to say no. they know this, so now the time is ripe for them.

Luckily we have a system where you can challenge these things as unconstitutional. But meanwhile I feel for the affiliates in the already affected states. What do they do?

[worlok]

Originally Posted by MichaelHiles

There's a massive amount of money moving through this "interconnected series of tubes" (a politician's description of the internet, remember?). Anytime big money is changing hands, the .gov is going to be there with their grubby mitts out. They don't see you as "the little guy". They see you as one of many players in a giant pool of capital, and they're hungry for cash to satisfy all the commitments.

I agree with you there. It's all about money.

[Wakunahum]

Originally Posted by ptone

Really? Just look at what state governments and the U.S. government are doing right now and have been doing for years. If you took a really hard look then I think you might would want to retract that part of your statement.

I'm not going to argue with you cause I agree.

My thinking is that they were targeting amazon and BIG online retailers as opposed to purposely targeting the little guys with THIS specific law.

Sure there are lots of laws/regulations/etc that do target the big and little guys.

[Matt Maiden]

Originally Posted by worlok

Luckily we have a system where you can challenge these things as unconstitutional.

I'm not trying to be a wise ass, but what is unconstitutional about proposing and levying a tax?

[Kevin AKA Hubcap]

The government (federal, state, and local) is in a financial bind. As usual, they mismanaged their funds, spent money they didn't have, and failed to look towards the future.

Now that there in a financial hole they're looking at ways that they can raise a quick buck. In my opinion, they are not looking long term. They wan't money now and will do whatever it takes to get it.

We all know about the affiliate taxation issue but states and counties are also doubling and tripling fees that we are required to pay which in my opinion is a "tax".

Until we can elect people who have a knowledge of how not only how vital small (and large) business is to the economy but how best to help business grow and increase their revenue thereby increasing tax revenue.

The thing that really burns me is that the government fails to budget and we, the tax payer, pay the price.

As someone who is part of the machine that drives the economy I'm sick and tired of irresponsible politicians inventing new ways to take my money.

[Black Hat Cat]

Originally Posted by worlok

It was rhetorical more than anything, and I still don't understand how this works. Is this because they don't want to collect sales taxes? Does that mean they simply won't sell to residents of California and those other states?? If not, then why pick on affiliates? It makes no sense to me.

Because if they dump the affiliates in these states, they have no physical presence in these states, meaning they don't have to collect sales tax.

Take health care. You can call it socialism, but single payer (Medicare for all) would require a government roll, but it would be pro business as it would take the burden of health insurance off the employers AND make US workers more attractive globally. You can usually frame things in a multitude of ways.

So, I am still a bit confused as to why affiliates are the sacrificial lambs here...

I'm not surprised you're confused...if you believe Medicare for all is a good thing, I'm betting there are a lot of things you're confused about.

[ptone]

Originally Posted by Matthew Maiden

I'm not trying to be a wise ass, but what is unconstitutional about proposing and levying a tax?

It is unconstitutional if it violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This is what Amazon, et al are arguing.

[GarrieWilson]

affiliates are just salesmen on commission

Salesmen create a nexus from what I have read. If you have a nexus, you must collect sales tax.

However, people who participate in affiliate programs are not salesmen. They are advertisers.

[Trader54]

Just get the Feds to bail you out, a little more stimulus money makes all the problems go away.

[mikkosant]

Is there any way clickbank affiliates could be affected? Adsense is safe too... until the affiliate marketers stop advertising.


I guess its time for the offline gold approach.


Thanks

[Aronya]

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

Salesmen create a nexus from what I have read. If you have a nexus, you must collect sales tax.

However, people who participate in affiliate programs are not salesmen. They are advertisers.

I don't think you'd win this argument. Advertisers pay to advertise, regardless of whether the product sells. Affiliates are paid when the product sells.

[GarrieWilson]

Take health care. You can call it socialism, but single payer (Medicare for all) would require a government roll, but it would be pro business as it would take the burden of health insurance off the employers AND make US workers more attractive globally. You can usually frame things in a multitude of ways.

Yeah, just what I want, the government providing my healthcare. That wont create red tape, delays, subpar care, etc. Look at the countries who do have it as an example.

No thanks.

I'll keep my private insurance. No need for me to sacrifice so those who didn't plan, work hard, etc. can be insured.

JFYI: It does suck for those who really need it but maybe community organizations should start helping these people. Maybe churches should instead of having alters that make the Tower of Bable look like a shack. Maybe the people who don't have it could start a non-profit and do fundraising to help people.

The Federal Government wasnt intended to provide health care or 90% of the other crap it does now. If it was running as intended, states would be better off as the money going to the Fed could be going to them instead.

To bad people don't understand that and only care about themselves.

[GarrieWilson]

Originally Posted by Aronya

I don't think you'd win this argument. Advertisers pay to advertise, regardless of whether the product sells. Affiliates are paid when the product sells.

Not all advertisers.

Some commercials run on a performance basis. Think late night tv.

Also, look at AdSense, it's a profit sharing advertising model. Just like the affiliate ads on my site.

[Matt Maiden]

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

Maybe the people who don't have it could start a non-profit and do fundraising to help people.

They do. It happens all of the time.

I had a neighbor whose daughter got Liver Cancer and their "coverage" didn't cover that kind of Cancer for the amount needed for her medical costs.

The parents spent most of their time trying to raise money to keep their daughter alive.

Meanwhile, up the highway a man who raped and murdered a little girl was getting his teeth cleaned by the taxpayers at the Federal prison.

I don't have the answer, but I know I don't like that.