

Amazon Offers To Hire 7,000 If California Waits On Sales Tax - zackbelow
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/09/02/amazon-offers-to-hire-7000-if-california-waits-on-sales-tax/

======
crxpandion
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/09/02/amazon-
off...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/09/02/amazon-offers-to-
hire-7000-if-california-waits-on-sales-tax/) is the correct link

~~~
zackbelow
thanks!

------
zackbelow
On top of the ridiculous sales tax bill have you seen the Babysitter bill?
[http://www.theunion.com/ARTICLE/20110830/BREAKINGNEWS/110839...](http://www.theunion.com/ARTICLE/20110830/BREAKINGNEWS/110839991/-1/RSS)
It is a bill being considered that says that if you hire a babysitter, you've
got to provide breaks every 2 hours (which means you've got to hire another
babysitter), plus pay for workman's compensation and keep track of taxes.

~~~
jinushaun
I agree that it's a stupid bill, but don't be so sensational. The bill only
applies to babysitters over 18, which are typically professional care givers
(i.e., nannies).

~~~
bradleyland
"which are typically professional care givers"

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.

~~~
jinushaun
Your friends ask you for money to watch your kids? Wow.

~~~
Hyena
It's perfectly acceptable. In my experience, it's better to exchange money for
labor in certain cases because it helps to define an activity away from the
friendship and so prevents it from becoming precedential.

~~~
zackbelow
can you imagine getting sued by the babysitter? "HEY MAN I WANT MY 2 HOUR
BREAK AND I WANT BENEFITS. ALL OF THEM. PWNED."

------
wccrawford
I wonder if there isn't a hidden threat there, too... That they'll pull jobs
from California if they don't get their way?

They're obviously able to choose where the jobs go, or this offer wouldn't
make sense at all.

~~~
masterzora
That's not a hidden threat; that's been an open threat for ages. Amazon has a
history of pulling out operations in states that try to pass similar laws and
they said they'd do the same in California. This offer was an attempt to avoid
that.

------
snorkel
Unlikely to deter the tax. 7000 added jobs not much compared to the hundreds
of millions California projects to earn from the ecommerce tax.

~~~
warmfuzzykitten
It's a whole lot more than the zero California will earn from the ecommerce
tax. California still has no authority to enforce a sales tax outside its
borders. Amazon now has no physical presence in California. So far the only
effect of the tax is to lose jobs in California.

------
guywithabike
It's a sad day when corporations can openly blackmail the government.

~~~
redsymbol
Oh come on. This isn't blackmail, it's offering an exchange that's win-win.
California wants - actually, badly NEEDS - jobs; Amazon wants to avoid or at
least delay the sales tax. They have every ethical and legal right to make the
proposal.

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.

~~~
mturmon
There are two things you're missing.

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...](http://www.internetretailer.com/2011/05/16/texas-moves-ahead-online-
sales-tax-bill)

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.

~~~
sliverstorm
It seems to me this is not blackmail, but rather a perfect analogue to The
Prisoner's Dilemma in game theory.

The fact that Amazon is posturing is inconsequential; the State is doing the
same thing, and it doesn't really change the core question.

------
michaelpinto
It was just a few weeks ago I was watching Steve Jobs give his pitch for
Apple's new campus in California -- at one point Jobs broke out the idea that
the benefit to the state was Apple paying their taxes. In other words the way
a company is a good corporate citizen is by increasing the tax base. What's
sad here is that Jobs was talking about payroll tax, not even sales tax. The
right thing for Amazon to do is to collect that tax instead of cheating the
kids of California. Also special deals for big companies (be it Amazon or
Walmart) are always unfair to small companies that don't get the same breaks.
If you're going to give a sales tax holiday to anyone it should be startup
companies in California that can use the boost.

~~~
jinushaun
In a state like CA which manages to be on the brink of bankruptcy despite
pulling in the largest amount of tax revenue in the US, I think the solution
is cutting spending, not throwing more money down the drain.

~~~
derobert
California is also the most populous state in the US. Looking at one figure
without the other is rather silly.

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?Docid=513)
[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=531&Topic2id=90&Topic3id=92)

