Re: “Amazon’s bully tactics,” March 13 guest commentary.
I read with amusement the guest commentary by state Sens. Jack Pommer and Mark Ferrandino, in which they accuse Amazon of bullying Colorado over House Bill 1193. I would like to ask them a question: If a big kid pushes a smaller kid around and the small kid runs away to avoid being pushed around, which one is the bully?
Tax laws have become major factors in business decisions. So if Amazon chooses to leave the state over a tax law business decision, how does that make them a bully? If Pommer and Ferrandino were in the California legislature, they would probably be labeling as bullies the companies leaving California for states with lower tax rates, such as Nevada, Oregon or Utah, or even Colorado!
Richard Postma, Littleton
I love that analogy! Here’s the second letter:
I think that most people are missing the real reason prompting Amazon’s recent actions. It is not their reluctance to collect sales tax; I believe it is the “Big Brother” requirements that would be imposed.
With purchases made from a Colorado brick-and-mortar store, the sales tax is collected and a lump sum is sent to the state. Except for items like homes, cars, etc., individual purchases, products and buying habits are not reported.
Although HB 1193 does not require Amazon to collect and send sales tax revenues to the state, it requires them to submit reports to the state identifying each purchaser with the dollar totals of their purchases.
This is a Big Brother intrusion that can only lead to future abuse.
Duane Thompson, Centennial
Such privacy concerns are certainly real, but I doubt that they are Amazon’s primary reason for canceling its Associates accounts. From what I’ve read, Amazon doesn’t want to submit to a crazy patchwork of state and local taxes, plus a costly mess of red tape and stiff penalties for non-compliance. They’re right: they shouldn’t submit to that!
For more information on this issue, please visit Repeal the Amazon Tax.