In case you missed it, H.1731 and S.1554 are winding their way through the Massachusetts legislature. These bills attempt to make large vendors like Amazon subject to state tax, by arguing that MA-based affiliates create an in-state presence.
I’ll concede that the US Constitution has made our in-state/out-of-state sales tax system a bit quirky. But I object to these bills because they put Massachusetts at a competitive disadvantage in the emerging Internet economy, at a time when more entrepreneurs are eyeing NY and CA for new companies, instead of MA.
It’s also not clear there’s any material revenue benefit: in other states, Amazon (and other vendors) have responded by canceling their affiliate programs in those states.
These bills are being pushed by Wal-Mart, other multi-national retailers, and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts (RAM), who argues:
Our local small businesses operate at a significant 6.25% price disadvantage to out-of-state, online businesses, leading to fewer sales at brick-and-mortar establishments who contribute so much to our community.
This highlights my real objection: these bills are about protecting the status quo, without taking a rational and realistic view of the future. Any MA-based retailer facing out-of-state mail-order competition should be considering the future of commerce. There are 49 other states where that retailer can sell tax free! That’s hardly a “disadvantage”.
Like many issues, it’s always helpful to understand the deeper issue. This is really about Wal-Mart pushing around Amazon. I can only hope that the MA legislature doesn’t rise to the bait.