* We have 50 states
* ... and if you're doing business online, add 50 countries to that...
* ... with their own sub-regions which may have their own laws (see the comment about Quebec above)
* Each of these local jurisdictions tends to have a LOT of laws on the books;
* Many of which are poorly written and unclear
* Many of which have been inconsistently, infrequently or unclearly applied as the internet has grown (you can very easily find examples of even giant companies, with corporate legal teams, running into unexpected issues)
Finally, there's the kicker:
* Even lawyers will end up telling you that, due to lack of clarity around laws applying to the internet and their enforcement, you might engage in a practice now only to find out later that it was more risky than you thought
Granted, OP's case is not the most complicated out there. It has a fairly clear answer: California is extremely aggressive about taxation and will grab any money it can. Hence the nickname "Taxifornia". And, be aware that employment is a particularly risky area.
But interstate commerce is really not as simple an issue as you're making it out to be. I've asked my accountant about issues where the answer was "well, you could technically be fined $50,000 and nobody really knows whether the state could successfully apply the fine, but right now they're not doing it sooooo..."
You can't have 'states rights' (which, for better or worse, is how America claims to govern itself) and also have a single law of the land.
If you aren't sure that you're breaking a state law, don't do business in that state. Or do, and live with the consequences.
You also completely ignored my point on the legal uncertainty factors. Businesses break laws every day that are just not enforced. Even a lawyer or accountant is occasionally blindsided by a state or federal authority choosing to selectively apply a law.
My sympathies lie with the small business owner here. It's very difficult to make sure that you've got every angle covered at all times, especially at the scale he's running at.
You mean, exist in the 21st century and sell or conduct any kind of business online? Is that a big business?
It's a well recognized fact that legal and accounting complexity, aka red tape, is an inhibitor of small business growth. Derisively sneering at anyone who doesn't want to do the "necessary work" or "behave" is a troll opinion, and not particularly rational.
Any business that has ever tried to do something at that scale at any point in human history needed to deal with compliance in all of them. Just because Stripe or the Apple Store provides payment processing as a service doesn't mean that you can just shrug your shoulders, and claim that none of the other regional distinctions and local laws apply to you.
> Derisively sneering at anyone who doesn't want to do the "necessary work" or "behave" is a troll opinion, and not particularly rational.
Claiming that the law doesn't apply to you because you're a small business and you can't be bothered to follow it what isn't particularly rational, here. If you think this is an excessive burden, you should work to invest more power in the federal government, or in international unions like the EU.
You don't just get to do a run-around of sovereignty because you're a foreigner and it's a lot of work.
Basically everything you've written is dripping with contempt for anyone who gets similarly blindsided, and you're making every effort to strawman and twist the message. Nobody, not me and not the guy writing this article, says that the law "doesn't apply" to us. Most people starting a business have a deep desire to follow the law as well as possible, because they don't want to run into future difficulties. But again, it's difficult to check all the boxes.
I wonder why you're so contemptuous, but it's kind of a moot point. Most people understand that the tax code complex, and understand that it would be better for small businesses if they were not so complex.
No, it's not.
“States rights” didn't really enter the political lexicon until it was injected there by the proponents of permanent institutionalization and expansion of slavery, who eventually revolted over it, lost, and whose ideological successors keep raising as a motto for their (usually unsuccessful, beyond the short term) attempts to resist progress on equal civil rights.
It is not “how America claims to govern itself”, it's how reactionary dissidents against the way America governs itself complain that they would prefer America to govern itself.
In the way America claims to govern itself, people have rights and governments, including those of states, have powers.
You probably mean “federalism” or “dual sovereignty” or something like that.
The general issue of the relative distribution of power between states and the central government has.
That's not what “State’s rights” historically refers to. As I explained, in detail.
Doesn't say anything about state's rights. But it does suggest that any powers not already reserved by the Federal government belong as much to the people (i.e., citizens) as they do to the states.
Yes, have you?
> State's rights are literally enshrined in the Constitution.
Find the word “right” or “rights” in the 10th Amendment.
“Rights” are nowhere associated with governments (state or federal) except in being protected against them in the Constitution (either base, bill of rights, or later Amendments); in the Constitutional model, people have both rights and powers, the latter of which they endow selectively to various governments.
“States rights” is a slogan created much later than the BoR by the pro-slavery faction that continues to be an anti-civil-rights slogan.
Leave any delusions of consistency at the door. :)
I get, from a legal perspective, that that's not fully aligned with all court precedent, but it's OK to call it dumb that CA has any say over this situation.
I'm not sure what you're missing here. I'm calling it dumb and inefficient. Yes, CA seems to have the legal right to set up a dumb system. That doesn't mean it's a Good Thing.
It does; that nexus consisting of 100% of its labor force working in the state.
> and should be the treated the same as a company with a warehouse and 500 employees
That's not the question, since a company with a warehouse and 500 employees in California is not treated the same, as it is subject to a whole lot of rules and mandates that a single-employee remote-only foreign-HQ’d business is not.
Yes, obviously. The part of my firm that is operating in California is.
Why does not having a physical location for the office change anything?