There's nothing sensational about calling that bill ridiculous. Not everyone who is over 18 and watches children on occasion for money is a professional care giver. Most of my friends have a 20-something friend that will watch their kids for them on date-night. They prefer the 20-something friend to a much younger babysitter because of maturity and responsibility. This person has a day-job, but they don't mind watching their friends' kids from time to time.
They're obviously able to choose where the jobs go, or this offer wouldn't make sense at all.
If I'm selling burgers for $5, and you give me $5 for one because you're hungry, am I "blackmailing" you to get your cash?
Perhaps I'm missing something? If so, please point it out.
First, Amazon has studiously avoided any effort to collect state sales tax. They use a variety of clever dodges to raise doubt that their design and development shops in CA amount to a business presence in CA. The "affiliates" program, recently shut in CA, was another such dodge. Same with the distribution centers being a "separate" company.
Then, when the state decides to go ahead with collecting something that is theirs to collect, Amazon tries to deflect it by raising a totally different matter (jobs in the state). The fact that they're not arguing their sales tax case directly, but threatening to pull jobs, is another aspect of the case you're missing.
I don't see how this is "win-win".
Here's a summary of the TX situation:
http://www.internetretailer.com/2011/05/16/texas-moves-ahead...
Featuring this choice quote which is replete with doublethink:
"We're committed to growth in Tennessee because the people here have demonstrated their commitment to Amazon jobs and investment," says Dave Clark, vice president of Amazon North America Operations.
The reality is that the jobs brought in will amount to about 2% of the sales tax revenue that would be brought in. But do you think the public will understand the math, or the phrase "voted against job creation"?
With that said, state sales tax has always been about collecting tax if the business has a presence in the state. This works for Amazon all the way down to the mom and pop that sells across the internet to people in another state.
Most (all?) states have a line item on their tax forms where the tax payer can write in a value on items they purchased out of state and need to pay taxes on. I'm guessing very few people fill that line in. It touches on another problem that no one wants to pay taxes (they always want someone else to pay), yet they want more and more services from the government.
Per capita, California does not bring in the highest amount of revenue of any state. In 2008 (the latest year I could quickly find data for), its #8 (#9 if you include DC). As a portion of personal income, CA is #11 or #12 (with DC).
Sources: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc... http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...
