Re: Amazon boycott

[Sandy Thatcher <sandy.thatcher@alumni.princeton.edu>]

The issue rose in Texas when the State Comptroller attempted to 
get Amazon to pay some $240 million in back sales taxes, and 
Amazon refused, claiming that its warehouse in Irving is owned by 
a subsidiary. Governor Perry backed Amazon in this dispute when 
Amazon declared that it would close the warehouse and let 119 
employees go if Texas didn't drop its claim. Around the same 
time, it was announced that Borders was going into bankruptcy and 
would close its stores in Texas, resulting in far more jobs lost 
than just 119.

I pointed out in a letter-to-the-editor that one reason 
bricks-and-mortar stores are going out of business is the unfair 
tax advantage that online retailers like Amazon have. Online 
retailers may once have needed this advantage; there can be no 
case for giving them such an advantage anymore.

Sandy Thatcher


At 9:23 PM -0400 8/16/11, Joseph Esposito wrote:

>Readers of this list may be interested that there is a consumer 
>boycott of Amazon starting in California.  See this article:
>
>http://www.baycitizen.org/budget-crisis/story/group-launch-boycott-amazon/
>
>The issue here is the collection of sales or use tax.  Amazon 
>won't collect it, claiming the tax is unconstitutional.  That 
>tax money goes (or would go) to schools, libraries, and other 
>aspects of civic infrastructure.
>
>The argument against the tax (besides the constitutional one) is 
>that the boycott is simply a stalking horse for Wal-Mart.  No 
>doubt that the policy issues here are complex, as they always 
>are, and that the media coverage greatly simplifies them.
>
>I stopped purchasing from Amazon myself when I saw that my local 
>public library had reduced its hours once again.  If I am a 
>stalking horse for Wal-Mart, no one ever told me.
>
>Joe Esposito