[bsder]

> absolutely untrue. in the beginning, Amazon was not required to collect sales taxes

You are correct in that Amazon wasn't required to collect sales tax. What you are omitting is that the buyer was supposed to submit the sales tax. Of course, no buyer ever did so.

So, what Amazon did was aid and abet tax fraud on a massive scale that effectively gave them an 8-10% discount on everything they sold until legislation caught up.

This absolutely murdered my favorite local technical bookstores. I'm sure other people have other stores that they know took a beating from that.

[nulbyte]

> So, what Amazon did was aid and abet tax fraud...

I don't see how Amazon can be held responsible for its customers' failing to pay use tax. It wasn't Amazon's obligation to ensure it was paid or even to inform their customers of the requirement to pay it.

[nostrademons]

It's very much analogous to AirBnB, though, which is the point of this thread. AirBnB has no contract with your landlord or condo association; they are breaking no agreement. They also do not reside within the bounds of the municipalities whose laws they are supposedly breaking, and so are not subject to their jurisdiction.

They, however, enable large-scale lawbreaking on the part of their hosts. Technically, it's the host's obligation to ensure that they comply with all applicable laws, contracts, and regulations. AirBnB has boilerplate terms to that effect. In practice, a significant number of them don't. AirBnB looks the other way because they gain a competitive advantage from it. Enforcement is difficult.

It's quite similar from Amazon gaining a competitive advantage because their customers are supposed to pay sales tax on their own (but don't).

[scarface74]

That’s like saying that car dealers abet drunk driving.