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...
The fact that Amazon is posturing is inconsequential; the State is doing the same thing, and it doesn't really change the core question.
[0] http://jan.ocregister.com/2011/06/29/amazon-terminates-deal-...
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/09/02/amazon-off...
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/09/01/pm...
"The state estimates sales tax would bring in around $83 million from Amazon alone -- $317 million from all Internet retailers. Income tax from Amazon's promised 7,000 jobs might add up to 2.5 percent of that."
What we're comparing here is how much sales tax California would pull in from online retailers vs how much income tax those 7,000 new workers would pay to CA. You can't compare the gross payroll amount to the sales tax.
One thing the state presumably would like to do with the tax revenue is promote job creation. Having 7,000 extra jobs available would bring all sorts of great benefits to California - some of which are easy to quantify, and some of which aren't.
The whole situation reminds me of a little skirmish recently between the San Francisco board of supervisors, and Twitter. Twitter was willing to move its main offices to a slightly run-down section of San Francisco in exchange for some city tax breaks; otherwise, they'd relocate to (I think) Burlingame instead. Twitter was going to have those jobs SOMEWHERE; the only question was whether it was going to be in SF, or somewhere else. And it didn't make economic sense for them to set up shop in SF without the tax breaks.
Providing jobs in an area, as well as the local business benefits of those people spending their salary in that location, was expected to bring enough benefit that the tax breaks were given, and Twitter decided to stay [0]. A lot of people were howling about corporate subsidies, though.
This whole subject is near and dear to my heart. One primary goal with my own startup is to create jobs that help financially support people and their families.
And on that note, back to work ;)
[0] http://venturebeat.com/2011/04/22/twitter-san-francisco/