Should Socially Responsible Investors (SRI) Drop Amazon (AMZN)?

By: ispeculatornew
Date posted: 07.20.2011 (5:00 am) | Write a Comment  (4 Comments)

      Post a Comment

Amazon (AMZN) is the top retailer on the web and has always been obsessed with efficiency in every one of its operating fields. Tax efficiency has been a primary concern in all of its acquisitions and how it does business in general. Why? As a retailer with no “physical stores,” it does not fit in the old version of what business should be taxed.

That is changing in some states as the state governments, looking for money to balance their budget are changing the definitions of what type of business should pay these taxes to include “ecommerce.” Amazon has been fighting this very hard, threatening to close out any business ties in states that pass such laws. Its threats have worked in some states that either dropped the law projects or gave “exceptions” to Amazon. These are not empty threats as Amazon has closed some offices in some instances.

California Follows Steps By Smaller States

The most recent event occurred in early July when California lawmakers  decided to include Amazon in the businesses that must charge (and pay) sales taxes. Amazon followed that threat by dropping its 10,000 affiliates (sale partners) in California:

“We oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive. It is supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside California, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors,”

How Hard Is Amazon Fighting Such Measures?

To give you an idea, the main reason why Amazon is rumored to not buy LivingSocial entirely is because that would create a presence in many states which would draw costs. Instead, Amazon is a major shareholder in this and other ventures,

Is Amazon doing the right thing by minimizing its taxes at any cost, in order to maximize (among other things) shareholder returns? Or is fighting taxes like this morally “unacceptable?” The question is certainly open for debate but I personally think Amazon has every right as a business to maximize its profits. It will eventually have to pay those taxes in my opinion but it has every right to delay that for as long as it can. I can see how other retailers such as Target find it unfair to compete when they must charge taxes to their consumers that Amazon does not have to but those are the current rules and it would be bad business for Amazon to not search for better tax efficiency.

What is your opinion?

If you liked this post, you can consider subscribing to our free newsletters here


4 Comments

  1. Comment by Skye — July 20, 2011 @ 10:56 am

    one of the many reasons why the US, and its states are in debt. no one wants to pay taxes.

  2. Comment by Devin — July 24, 2011 @ 4:55 pm

    Why toss your money down a rathole? State governments are as worthless as the Federal one.

  3. Comment by Joe — August 4, 2011 @ 4:18 pm

    I applaud Amazon’s stance on the attempted imposition of “sales taxes” on ecomerce. The state incurs no expense in the operation and offers no tangible support for it. Therefore, I see it as nothing more than a (maybe) convenient way to increase revenue for the ‘tax and spend’ politicians.

    As a frequent customer of web based sellers, I have to trade off the lack of sales tax vs. the cost of shipping to compare bottom lines with buying locally. It is usually about a wash so not all that adverse for the local Target or WalMart.

    The more esellers who tell our California politicians to “take a hike”, the better!

  4. Comment by IS — August 4, 2011 @ 7:36 pm

    @Joe – Thanks for the feedback very appreciated. By the way, I might be wrong but I think they can still ship from those states, just not sell. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this:)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.