Amazon has revenge on and tries to punish Missouri

I just got this email this evening, from Amazon.  Seems they're upset. They don't like what's come out of our statehouse:


Greetings from the Amazon Associates Program.

We are writing from the Amazon Associates Program to notify you that your Associates account will be closed and your Amazon Services LLC Associates Program Operating Agreement will be terminated effective August 27, 2013. This is a direct result of the unconstitutional Missouri state tax collection legislation passed by the state legislature and signed by Governor Nixon on July 5, 2013, with an effective date of August 28, 2013. As a result, we will no longer pay any advertising fees for customers referred to an Amazon Site after August 27 nor will we accept new applications for the Associates Program from Missouri residents.

Please be assured that all qualifying advertising fees earned prior to August 28, 2013 will be processed and paid in full in accordance with your regular advertising fee schedule. Based on your account closure date of August 27, 2013, any final payments will be paid by October 31, 2013.

While we oppose this unconstitutional state legislation, we strongly support the federal Marketplace Fairness Act now pending before Congress. Congressional legislation is the only way to create a simplified, constitutional framework to resolve interstate sales tax issues and it would allow us to re-open our Associates program to Missouri residents.

We thank you for being part of the Amazon Associates Program, and look forward to re-opening our program when Congress passes the Marketplace Fairness Act.


Sincerely,

The Amazon Associates Team
_________________________________

To which I respond:

Dear Amazon:

FO.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it "unconstitutional."  Just ask retailers.


Sincerely,

Mo Rage

$300 "bloggers license"?

Did you see this? Philly requiring bloggers to pay $300 for a business license This seems to fall under the rule, if it moves (or makes money), tax it. (God forgive me, I'm paraprasing Ronald Reagan). Have a great day, y'all. Link to original story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/philly-requiring-bloggers-to-pay-300-for-a-business-license-101264664.html

Unconscionable taxation

There is a terrific article in The Star today, showing what our representatives passed this week for legislation regarding taxes on pleasure crafts--boats--in Missouri:

"Cash-strapped legislators have recommended spending cuts for Missouri schools and shelters for battered women, but so far the yachting class can enjoy another season of clear sailing."

Read: paying no taxes on their large boat purchases.

No taxes.

It's so obviously hypocritical it's difficult to believe.

The article points out that the people who enjoy these large boats--yachts, truly, as the paper refers to them--are the people who are closest to the representatives. They are the lobbyists and corporate
wealhty who can no doubt purchase the tax cuts from the friends, these same representatives.

But what is most telling to me was The Star'schart, showing what the taxes would be for these watercraft, should this proposal pass.

Want to buy a 55 foot yacht?

Zero taxes.

45 foot boat?

Same--zero tax paid.

32 foot?

you're clear.

But buy a 22 foot pontoon? (Which, mind you, I'm not saying is "cheap" but it truly can't be compared in cost to the huge ships above).

$2315.00 in taxes.

That is stunning.

How about a 17 foot boat?

$1390.00

Then there's a 12 foot rowboat?

You'll pay $115.00 in taxes, sucker.

The poor schlub who pays $1500.00 for a rowboat pays $115.00 more in taxes that the guy who can and does pay nearly a million dollars for his yacht.

This is revolting. Disgusting. Shameful. Really unscionable.

Let there be no doubt, NOT STEVE WONDER said it best when he said, "Them that has, gets."

Apparently these fatcats and their representative friends are completely unfamiliar with the term "noblesse oblige."

Here's an idea for taxation and corporations

Question and proposal: Why don't we have a minimum 10% tax on all businesses in the United States, regardless of deductions?

It could and should serve as a minimum requirement for working, living and benefitting from being in this country and having exposure to its markets.

You want transfer of wealth statistics?

One of the things that really frustrated and, in fact, angered me during the campaign for the Presidency, was the ridiculous, obscene accusation on the part of anyone against Liberals, Democrats or specific candidates like Barack Obama that he was a radical, far-left Liberal, at least, and, more likely, Socialist, at worst, who was going to take away our money.

What nonsense.

You want transfer of wealth statistics? You want to hear unfairness?

This from the January, 2009 Harper's Magazine and its Harper's Notebook section I wrote about Saturday--just two statistics:

1) Portion of all US income gains during the Bush Administration that have gone to the top one percent of earners: 3/4 (that's 75%)
2) Increase since 2000 in the number of Americans living at less than half the federal poverty level: 3,500,000

You Conservatives and Republicans and fat cats and "Joe the Plumbers" want to talk "transfer of wealth" now?

Can you say "oligarchy"?