PrintDiscuss
Views » March 12, 2010 » Web Only

The Tax War Goes Online

By David Sirota

In the Office Space economy, Amazon is Initech and Bezos is the firm's soullessly saccharine Bill Lumbergh.

Is the Internet everywhere or is it nowhere?

This question will strike many readers as a navel-gazing exercise in post-modern existential inquiry, prompting reflections on the 21st-century meaning of location (is an IP address really an address?) and space (is cyberspace actually “space”?). But thanks to Amazon.com, it’s become a question about more concrete and imminent issues like budget deficits and tax fairness.

Following a 70 percent earnings increase last quarter, the company this week terminated its business relationships with its Colorado affiliates. The move was a response to new Colorado legislation compelling online retailers to either collect the sales taxes that every other business collects, or at least disclose that customers must pay the levy to the state themselves.

The bill was pragmatic, seeking to raise much-needed revenues as Colorado’s infrastructure and schools buckle under a $2 billion budget shortfall. But Amazon, indifferent to such emergencies, reacted with punitive petulance, sending a deliberate message to lawmakers in every other state: Make us play by the same tax rules as other businesses, and your state will be punished, too.

The company, you see, fears that most capitalist of principles: fair competition. It instead relies on a rigged market.

Despite the ubiquity of its Web presence and its affiliates, Amazon says it only officially exists in four states (Kansas, Kentucky, North Dakota and Washington) and that it therefore isn’t required to collect local taxes on its transactions in the other 46 states. That has allowed the company to sell goods at seemingly lower prices than local brick-and-mortar competitors, which in turn artificially tilts the market in Amazon’s favor.

In recent years, New York, North Carolina, Hawaii and Rhode Island have woken up to the scheme, passing laws that explicitly apply their local taxes to online retailers. Now, with budget crises intensifying, even more states are pondering similar legislation. And so rather than simply accepting a level playing field, Amazon opted to make an example out of Colorado as a means of pre-emptive intimidation.

This is politics at its most bare-knuckled—not surprising, considering it comes from Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, a caricature of Information Age greed.

In the Office Space economy, Amazon is Initech and Bezos is the firm’s soullessly saccharine Bill Lumbergh. Like the typical dot-com shark, he shrouds old-fashioned suit-and-cigar ruthlessness in business-casual attire, ear-to-ear grins and Charlie Rose-ready colloquialisms. But beneath the earth tones and triumphalist techno-babble is the same boor who offshored a Seattle call center the moment employees pondered a union.

Punishing one state’s economy to scare other states is all in a day’s work for this guy — especially because ratio-wise, it could be a brilliant financial decision. Sacrificing some business in Colorado, where the tax was projected to raise $5 million in public revenue, may end up a jackpot investment if the move kills the initiative in places like California, where it could raise $150 million every year.

“If” — it always comes down to “if,” doesn’t it? And this particular “if” is bigger than even Bezos’ corporation.

Amazon, as one California lawmaker says, has “built an entire business model based on tax avoidance.” Unfortunately, so have many other firms, as evidenced by America’s $300 billion annual gap between taxes owed and paid. And as more commerce is transacted through tax-avoiding Internet conglomerates, that gap could grow, honest local business could be further disadvantaged and deficits could explode, forcing ever deeper cuts to public services.

This is the dystopian outcome that multinational corporations and anti-government activists aim for in today’s tax wars — and they could make it a reality.

If—but only if—states back down.

  • Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
  • Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
  • Or win a subscription to In These Times by taking this short survey!
David Sirota is a senior editor at In These Times and author of the bestselling books The Uprising and Hostile Takeover. He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com.

More information about David Sirota
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    Well, all I have to say is bravo to Amazon.  Every little bit helps.

    Posted by Ayn R. Key on Mar 14, 2010 at 10:30 PM

    What kind of stupid remark is that. Tax avoidance by the rich contributes to deficits and raises local taxes for the middle class when states and localities need to make up the shortfall. Tax dodging has done nothing to help society. Every little bit hurts.

    Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 15, 2010 at 10:34 AM

    It’s not nearly as stupid as you think.  Tax dodging is far more noble than people give it credit for.  Even the tax code recognizes this because it gives us deductions if we act in certain ways.  Giving to charity and having a mortgage actually reduce the amount of taxes you owe.

    Posted by Ayn R. Key on Mar 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM

    I have no problem with generous tax deductions for the middle class and working poor. I rely greatly on them myself. But billion dollar corporations completely dodging taxes by hiding their income is costing us all. Our deficit is clear evidence of that.

    Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 16, 2010 at 2:24 PM

    cabdriver:  I agree completely!  The main reason we’ve exploded our deficit and budget deficit is due to tax cuts for the wealthy.  These are the same people and businesses that outsourced work to other countries leaving the middle class and working class without jobs.

    It seems the people that are benefitting most in this country are the ones that are least willing to see it survive.  Of course, that makes sense when you realize that they can take their millions and billions and move to another country, once they’ve bankrupted it, while we everyday Americans don’t have that option.

    That’s why we have to have laws that establish fair play.  I find it odd that people don’t make the connection between collective bargaining and the creation of the middle class.  Before FDR there WAS no middle class.  There was only the very rich and the very poor and if you were born poor chances were extremely good you would stay that way because there would be no school for you.  It was a permanent slave class.

    Collective bargaining, and the changes that came with it, enabled the children of the working class to climb out of that station and that’s where the middle class came from.  Make no mistake, the middle class began a downward spiral right along with the working class when Reagan dealt a death blow to unions,  And until the working class again has a voice in government these kind of shenanigans on the part of big business will run amok.  The whole aim of Republicans and their big money supporters for decades has been to return to a permanent slave class.  That’s what they mean by “taking back our country.”

    Posted by CherisPlace on Apr 17, 2010 at 11:41 PM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 30 posts.

Also by David Sirota
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS