Amazon may dump California affiliates over web sales tax

Hike up all the taxes you want, you're still gonna be in a deficit.

Is stupidity a prerequisite for being a liberal?
Or does being liberal make one stupid?
Governor Rainbow wrecked the State two decades ago...so they reelected him - to raise their taxes again...to drive out business...to eliminate more jobs...and on and on!

Nobody likes paying taxes.
But sooner or later if nobody pays up & everyone avoids paying them then the civic society most of us depend upon falls to pieces.
The 30yr long dutch auction to ever lower tax rates (funnily enough usually primarily benefitting those at the top of the income/profits scale) is a foolish fiction.
It cannot go on indefinitely.

People at the bottom and in the middle are being conned.

People at the bottom and in the middle are being squeezed because those at the top along with biggest businesses and corporations are funding politicos who aid them in their refusing to pay their way - and worse trying to black-mail the people into accepting this as perfectly acceptable.

Brown is merely the exception to the rule until the next pro-big business slimey PR creation comes along.

Liberal or right wing.. It doesn't matter.
Why do conservatives always blame left wingers on the deficit.
Remember GWB?
Short memory eh?
Jeff

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

People at the bottom and in the middle are being conned.

People at the bottom and in the middle are being squeezed because those at the top along with biggest businesses and corporations are funding politicos who aid them in their refusing to pay their way

---

Prove it. Let's see your numbers....
....I'll wait....

You are parroting the liberal mantra as you have been programmed.
In fact, the lowest 50% of wager earners pay 2% of all income taxes. While the top 5% of earners pay 58%. Go to ntu dot org, tax-basics, who-pays-income-taxes.
I beg you; please stop being a drone for the liberals.

Loose your Rright wing

Originally posted by Blessedon:

---

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

People at the bottom and in the middle are being conned.

People at the bottom and in the middle are being squeezed because those at the top along with biggest businesses and corporations are funding politicos who aid them in their refusing to pay their way

---

Prove it. Let's see your numbers....
....I'll wait....

You are parroting the liberal mantra as you have been programmed.
In fact, the lowest 50% of wager earners pay 2% of all income taxes. While the top 5% of earners pay 58%. Go to ntu dot org, tax-basics, who-pays-income-taxes.
I beg you; please stop being a drone for the liberals.

---

Lose your right wing rhetoric. I lived in CA. most of my life.
You waste your time looking up #'s
Typical Republican..
Jeff

Typical right wing conservative response.
You look up the #'s without using Fox as your frame of reference.
Jeff

Originally posted by Blessedon:

---

You are parroting the liberal mantra as you have been programmed.
In fact, the lowest 50% of wager earners pay 2% of all income taxes. While the top 5% of earners pay 58%. Go to ntu dot org, tax-basics, who-pays-income-taxes.
I beg you; please stop being a drone for the liberals.

---

This is true, yes, but the numbers are so skewed because the top 5% of this nation make 90 percent of the money so there is no argument either way, and political party means nothing in this case.

Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:

---

Liberal or right wing.. It doesn't matter.
Why do conservatives always blame left wingers on the deficit.
Remember GWB?
Short memory eh?
Jeff

---

The financial crisis that began in 2007 with the housing meltdown started with President Carter and Clinton exacerbated it BUT Clinton did manage to get this nation to a surplus, no small feat. W was no saint in getting our deficit to where it is, that's for sure.

Who was president in 2007? Actually it was 2006.
I was a homeowner in California at the time. So I may know something about it.
Back to school young man.

Talk to somebody who will listen to your rhetoric.
You have fallen on deaf ears with me.
Have a nice evening.
Jeff

Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:

---

Who was president in 2007? Actually it was 2006.
I was a homeowner in California at the time. So I may know something about it.
Back to school young man.

Talk to somebody who will listen to your rhetoric.
You have fallen on deaf ears with me.
Have a nice evening.
Jeff

---

You are likely confused here, so I will let it slide. My 40-page senior thesis was on the causes of the financial crisis, so I may know a thing or two about it, as well. W may have been President at the time, but what does that mean, nothing. Surely you don't blame Obama for the current troubles we are in, right? Housing price growth stalled in 2006, but it was certainly not a CRISIS until 2007.

Two party politics is archaic and should be done away with, period.

Dude, what is your trip?
You are still misinformed.
Good luck getting a job that will pay your mortgage.

I am an engineer in electronics industry for 30+ years. I designing radiological detection equipment for Stanford U ~ 20 years.
Come back when you grow up.
Jeff

Originally posted by DVDBack23:

---

The financial crisis that began in 2007 with the housing meltdown started with President Carter and Clinton exacerbated it BUT Clinton did manage to get this nation to a surplus, no small feat. W was no saint in getting our deficit to where it is, that's for sure.

---

I am grateful that you succinctly state what I have tried to explain to hundreds; that this bubble began with Carter, and was exacerbated by the inaction of those who followed. To be fair to GWB, bad as he was, he tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie but Dodd and Frank wouldn't allow it.

Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:

---

Liberal or right wing.. It doesn't matter.
Why do conservatives always blame left wingers on the deficit.
Remember GWB?
Short memory eh?
Jeff

---

It is useless to debate liberals, who believe their half-truths, and always believe name-calling serves as an arguable point. I will say though; you are unique for castigating me for using #'s to debate finances. LOL!
Now, to your quote here: "All spending must originate in the House", oh...that's right...the Constitution is an impediment to you progressive agenda.

You make me laugh.
Name calling? Go back to bed.
I didn't realize this is a political forum.
Do you have anything to contribute regarding computers?
You seem to have a head full of steam.
BTW: brainac, I'm not a liberal by any means. I'm a registered Republican in the state of Arizona where I now reside.. Pull the stick out of your ass.
Some people
Jeff

I could not have scripted the above response more appropriately; thank you for the justification!

May I add; I am a registered Democrat and have been my entire life.

Originally posted by Blessedon:

---

the lowest 50% of wager earners pay 2% of all income taxes. While the top 5% of earners pay 58%. Go to ntu dot org, tax-basics, who-pays-income-taxes.

---

Right-wingers & number-play, very amusing.

Instead of talking tax-take (which as DVDback23 pointed out inevitably must reflect the difference you claim beause incomes are so staggerinly disproportionate) lets talk % of income paid in taxes in total.

But of course the right-wing never want to do this as it shows those on low & middle incomes a pay vastly larger % of their incomes in taxes comapred to those at the top.

No, please, post the numbers.

Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:

---

You waste your time looking up #'s
Jeff

---

Jeff, are you serious? Number don't mean anything JUST because you don't agree with them? My daughter lived in CA for 4 year, easily establishing residency. She was denied in-state tuition while illegal aliens were getting it.

I don't care what party you are, denying instate for a resident while granting it to an illegal is ... what the rest of the country expects from the land of fruits, nuts, and flakes.

As far as your hatred of any numbers that don't support your wacko bias, you are a MORON. "I don't like the numbers, so they must be wrong." See if you can call Vanna and buy a clue.

Call Govern Brown.
I no longer live in CA.
I'm happy as a pig in shit here in AZ.

CA> has gone down the poop-shot while rent and housing cost 1/3 the amount it does in CA.

Sure triple digit temperatures rule.

I don't really know the circumstances that had your daughter with tuition. However my youngest daughter (27) is back in school with a scholarship.

Stanford put my daughters and I through school.
Jeff

Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:

---

Dude, what is your trip?
You are still misinformed.
Good luck getting a job that will pay your mortgage.

I am an engineer in electronics industry for 30+ years. I designing radiological detection equipment for Stanford U ~ 20 years.
Come back when you grow up.
Jeff

---

I don't actually think you understand you're talking to two separate people. I also don't care if your job was saving babies, name calling and condescending tone has never won an argument, no matter what the topic is.

I'm going swimming. Have a nice day.
I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm 56 and can have a tude at times. It comes with age.
So whatever you read into my post is wrong.

Like I said I do not know why your daughter got denied.
Is that the full story?
My daughters benefited from me working for Stanford for almost 20 years.

I like trying to help people for whatever reason including AD. It is just my nature.
Folks like to shoot you down for their own personal reasons. So if you feel offended don't be. It is all in good fun.
Jeff

Originally posted by Blessedon:

---

No, please, post the numbers.

---

Look mate, this is school level economics.
Be blind if you choose but most know the truth of this.
Not only is it self-evident to anyone who cares to give it a moments thought it IS backed by the numbers.

Check out the NYT Feb 2011.

Case 1; the NYC janitor, income $33,080, pays 24.9% of income in taxes

Case 2; the Average Helmsley building filer, income $1,167,708, pays 14.7% of income in taxes.

Yes the cash amount paid by the rich guy is higher but the little guy is the one paying the highest % (by some margin) of his income in taxes.
Just like I said.
In the US & the UK the rich get to keep the vast majority of their income the rest of us lose a much bigger proportion.

By all means keep on pretending it's fair if you must, there's a whole political class & media geared to PR'ing that as if its true.....sadly for the propaganda there's a whole world out there who experiences & sees the day to day inequity of it all.

Oh and I'm not suggesting nobody is allowed to benefit from their hard work.
I am saying that countries with a narrower post-tax income spread generally are happier safer countries to live & work in.
Like most of continental Europe for instance.
They too have their rich but the rich pay a much fairer share and recognise they have a responsibility to help maintain the society in which they live and benefit from.

Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:

---

Liberal or right wing.. It doesn't matter.
Why do conservatives always blame left wingers on the deficit.
Remember GWB?
Short memory eh?
Jeff

---

Gee, when was he governor of CA?

- Reality Check

Arguing about the income tax is a straw-man for this topic. This is about SALES TAX, which is regressive and disproportionately hits those with lower incomes. At least the income tax is done on a progressive scale.

States like California are really hurting for revenue. They have been cutting deeply across the budget for the last few years. They have slashed the budget for state Medicaid, which is the safety net for the poorest of the elderly and disabled among us. Also, transportation, education, energy, infrastructure, you name it, it has been cut to the bone. There is a long list of programs that have been severely reduced or eliminated due to the budget deficit in CA.

A big part of the problem is that it is exceedingly difficult to raise taxes in California. Since Prop 13 back in 1978, a two-thirds majority is required to raise taxes on income or property, or even special projects voted on locally. Since 1978, almost every time a tax hike was put to a vote, either in the state legislature or to the voters directly in a ballot proposition, it passed by a majority, but not quite by the super-majority now required. Ergo, Jerry Brown has figured that the only way to change the status quo is to let the people feel the pain of genuine cuts to the point that they repeal the super-majority requirement to raise revenue.

In the meantime, however, we get outcomes like this -- ultimately revenue-killing and job-killing sales taxes on out-of-state e-commerce. Everybody pays the same with a sales tax, whether you are a billionaire or you are desperately eking out a meager living. And no, it is NOT a tax on Amazon -- it is a tax on all of Amazon's customers in CA.

Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:

---

You make me laugh.
Name calling? Go back to bed.
I didn't realize this is a political forum.
Do you have anything to contribute regarding computers?
You seem to have a head full of steam.
BTW: brainac, I'm not a liberal by any means. I'm a registered Republican in the state of Arizona where I now reside.. Pull the stick out of your ass.
Some people
Jeff

---

Why am I not surprised you're a Republican seeing as they always say the same old shit every time!

PS: If you're a graduate of Stanford, I'd get a spellchecker if I were you seeing as you said "designing" instead of "design" in one of your posts!
PPS: How about pulling the stick out of your own ass instead of telling someone to do it themselves!

My family buys a lot from Amazon because of saving on the sales tax, and with many products you can get free shipping. I do most of my shopping online and try to avoid paying taxes and shipping. Sometime you have to pay, but in this economy, every penny I save helps in the long run. Half of my income goes for taxes (Income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc.) The middle class pays more than its fair share in taxes in the country.

Originally posted by Semperfipal:

---

My family buys a lot from Amazon because of saving on the sales tax, and with many products you can get free shipping. I do most of my shopping online and try to avoid paying taxes and shipping. Sometime you have to pay, but in this economy, every penny I save helps in the long run. Half of my income goes for taxes (Income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc.) The middle class pays more than its fair share in taxes in the country.

---

Lucky guy..I use Amazon for mostly all of my shopping, as well, but have had to pay taxes for years now, thanks New York!

thank you for going beyond what fox news or MSNBC cover, you are right! nobody talks percentages because they dont want the truth to be known by the general population for the "lower" class might actually get off of the sofa and begin to effect change

Some people (Jeffie) want to confuse the issues, because that's the only way they can win an argument. So the only thing I'm going to say about his "income tax" example is, if you REALLY think it's that simple, I have a bridge to sell you.

As far as age, I'm also 56, so keep your pissy, old-fart attitude to yourself. I can can rein in mine, so can you.

The ORIGINAL question was Amazon collecting sales tax. Now I personally APPROVE of CA taking this action, because I hope the rest of the country will realize what an ABYSMALLY STUPID action it is. Do you REALLY think that people will buy from a CA store and pay sales tax when they can buy from another state and avoid it? And the POINT is, if the US goes this route, won't that benefit stores in Canada, Mexico, and other countries? You see, you can TALK all you want, but lots of words don't make you smart and I have yet to see the supporter of sales taxes state, "Oh yes, I'll be glad to pay 10% more on my purchases to support California's overspending of their budget." Come on, wackos! We are waiting to hear you take the pledge!

Remember 2003? California's ivory tower representatives decided they could cap what they paid for power? What happened? Economic forces, which are NOT subject to political whim.

You see, the "evil" power companies were looking to the future. They knew they could build a plant in CA and make less money than they could in AZ, for example. So where did they build new plants? Of course, they were "EVIL" to upstage their politicians this way. What a nasty thing to do, to not support socialism! Naturally, the politicians, who can't see beyond their next election, couldn't do the simple math that tells them that the population of CA was increasing, therefore the power use was also, but the number of power plants wasn't. And we all know that the "evil" power companies are only interested in maximizing their profits - unlike fair and true liberals who will invest their money at a lower interest rate to receive a fair profit, and likewise will turn down a raise on their job because that's also fair and equitable... (My sarcasm isn't too difficult for you to understand, is it Jeffie?)

So, when California's needs outstripped their production, they were forced to buy power on the spot market, at up to 4 times the going rate. After all, the companies built in Arizona, which was making good money selling surplus power to Mexico, which meant CA had to BID for the extra power it needed because their politicians were too stupid to recognize that their laws had no affect on economic forces. Of course, it's the "evil" power companies' fault.

Get REAL. Learn to do math. Math is real and WHINING about math that doesn't agree with your childish expectations is immature, no matter how old you are.

Why are you so long winded?
Guess you are a blow hard.
Have a nice 4th.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/06/27/20110627history-quiz-July-4-slideshow-prog.html

Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:

---

Why are you so long winded?

---

Oh, that's easy. WACKOS are always telling people really intelligent things like, "You waste your time looking up #'s ", which is doublespeak for, "I'm not smart enough to do the math, but I don't like the results, so they must be wrong."

I'm long winded in order to EDUCATE people who can't do math. So in reality, it's YOUR fault. If you could do the math instead of spewing out 15 second sound bites, I wouldn't need to correct your garbage.

Of course, you worked at STANFORD for 20 years - another ivory tower imbecile with lots of blue-sky theories, but not one shred of common sense.

And yes, I will have a nice 4th. I'm a 39-year veteran of the US Army and Texas National Guard, 4 combat tours, military specialties in Infantry, Armor, Intelligence, Psychological Warfare, and Computer Operations. I may not care for your crap, but I've put my @ss on the line to defend your right to be misinformed.

Originally posted by ToadWiz:

---

Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:

---

Why are you so long winded?

---

Oh, thats easy. WACKOS are always telling people really intelligent things like, "You waste your time looking up #s ", which is doublespeak for, "Im not smart enough to do the math, but I dont like the results, so they must be wrong."

Im long winded in order to EDUCATE people who cant do math. So in reality, its YOUR fault. If you could do the math instead of spewing out 15 second sound bites, I wouldnt need to correct your garbage.

Of course, you worked at STANFORD for 20 years - another ivory tower imbecile with lots of blue-sky theories, but not one shred of common sense.

And yes, I will have a nice 4th. Im a 39-year veteran of the US Army and Texas National Guard, 4 combat tours, military specialties in Infantry, Armor, Intelligence, Psychological Warfare, and Computer Operations. I may not care for your crap, but Ive put my @ss on the line to defend your right to be misinformed.

---

Jeff

Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:

---

Jeff

---

You may be a wacko who can't do math, but I gotta admit, that is funny. My wife thought so to.

No, I'm not mad. I'm frustrated by people who can't do math wanting to export our jobs and raise the prices on what we buy by thinking that we can get money from the corporations so we won't have to pay it. That's fallacious - no one with a brain really thinks Lee Iacoca is going to take a pay cut if we raise the tax on Chrysler. Instead he's going to raise the prices to cover the tax, which means the consumer is going to pay through higher prices. Meanwhile higher prices mean less Chrysler's sold overseas, which means less US jobs. You think anyone could do the math to apply this to any company out there.

Funny guy, my degree is in electronic which is 90% math. So really don't know where you come up with some of your stuff.

That's right FIAT owns Chrysler, Ferrari..... Unless there is some sort of master plan this is the way things will be the same for who knows how long.

Now that China owns the USA owing them billions of $$ with no way of paying them back, we better learn how to speak Chinese.

Will you please try to enjoy life and have a nice 4th
Jeff

Strange ... you claim to be able to do math but say, "You waste your time looking up #s." Oh well, maybe you forgot given your advanced age.

My Bachelors is in Computer Science and my Master is in Information Systems.

I was an engineer for SLAC for almost 20 years.
My specialty is designing Radiological detection equipment. Best job I have ever had. Two jobs my whole 30 + year career. Guess I have enough knowledge to be a long-timer.

Unfortunately I could no longer work because of health issues.
I sure do miss it and painful at times.
BTW, I have come across people with a piece of paper say they have a degree in this and that but are basically useless. It shows with real world experience.
Jeff

Um, I think you need to rethink your analysis of the CA power Crisis, because you left out Enron. They were CAUGHT not building infrastructure solely to drive up power prices, you know. It was pretty freaking blatant too. Blaming the entire problem on any one party is, quite frankly, dangerously foolish, and perpetuates the myths ALL of the actual guilty parties want you to believe.

Folks, it's a combination of:
- Taxpayer ignorance, laziness, and inaction,
- Politcal lack of will/spine, ignorance, laziness, inaction, and flagrant greed, and
- Corporate hog-trough, lassez-faire, Teapot-Dome crap that we STILL let them get away with.

Blaming any one party lets 2/3 of the real guilty parties off the hook, and is pure bullshit.

Originally posted by Bozobub:

---

Um, I think you need to rethink your analysis of the CA power Crisis, because you left out Enron. They were CAUGHT not building infrastructure solely to drive up power prices, you know.

---

Bozo, I don't disagree with some of your message, especially about ignorance, laziness, and inaction. But surely you can understand the difference between your statement above and the equally true statement, "Enron looked at the bottom line, determined they could amortize a plant in 40 years in California with a hostile government which might make things worse, or could amortize the plant in 15 years in Arizona."

BOTH statements describe the exact same process. One is skewed to make a company look more "evil" for failing to kowtow to California's legislators. In fact, I pointed out in my original post that Enron made the choice for the highest profit, even as most consumers do with looking for a savings account, or as employees do when wanting the highest pay for their work. I am not defending Enron nor am I defending naked greed. But it takes a special kind of mentality (liberal) to say that corporate greed is infinitely worse than personal greed. Is corporate greed evil and immoral and personal greed acceptable? Maybe so ... in California.

Yes, Enron made the deliberate decision to build where they could get the highest profit, something the boneheaded California legislators didn't have the intelligence to figure out regardless of the number of degrees they had, as Jeffie pointed out. This stuff is simple economics. It is a shame so many people, with or without degrees, can't do it.

Good one also PG&E tries to skate while laying off workers and installing smart meters which use a wireless connection that are less accurate at this point in time than the old analog, real people reading the meters.

PG&E should have done preventive maintenance instead of trying to be cute with their billing process.
http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/06/09/pge-reveals-san-bruno-pipeline-suffered-major-leak/
Hey Toadwarts why do you have to grade yourself by name calling
Very Sophomoric
Jeff

Originally posted by ToadWiz:

---

Originally posted by Bozobub:

---

Um, I think you need to rethink your analysis of the CA power Crisis, because you left out Enron. They were CAUGHT not building infrastructure solely to drive up power prices, you know.

---

Bozo, I don't disagree with some of your message, especially about ignorance, laziness, and inaction. But surely you can understand the difference between your statement above and the equally true statement, "Enron looked at the bottom line, determined they could amortize a plant in 40 years in California with a hostile government which might make things worse, or could amortize the plant in 15 years in Arizona."

BOTH statements describe the exact same process. One is skewed to make a company look more "evil" for failing to kowtow to California's legislators. In fact, I pointed out in my original post that Enron made the choice for the highest profit, even as most consumers do with looking for a savings account, or as employees do when wanting the highest pay for their work. I am not defending Enron nor am I defending naked greed. But it takes a special kind of mentality (liberal) to say that corporate greed is infinitely worse than personal greed. Is corporate greed evil and immoral and personal greed acceptable? Maybe so ... in California.

Yes, Enron made the deliberate decision to build where they could get the highest profit, something the boneheaded California legislators didn't have the intelligence to figure out regardless of the number of degrees they had, as Jeffie pointed out. This stuff is simple economics. It is a shame so many people, with or without degrees, can't do it.

---

Read the post above.

Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:

---

Good one also PG&E tries to skate while laying off workers and installing smart meters which use a wireless connection that are less accurate at this point in time than the old analog, real people reading the meters.

---

Sure ... at this point.

Look everything we have argued about boils down to one simple thing. Everyone, person or corporation, wants as much as possible in return for as little as possible. That's greed, right?

Ok, all I'm saying is let's put some THOUGHT into the process and see where it takes us. Did Enron build plants in AZ rather than CA to boost their profits? Yes. What could we have done better? California legislators could have RECOGNIZED that by making things harder on corporations, they drive corporations and corporate investment out of their state. What can we do about it? Well, I suppose we could hold the CEO of Enron captive and put a gun to his head ... but short of that?

There is a REASON the economies of states with low or no income tax are showing economic growth. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. Two others, New Hampshire and Tennessee, tax only dividend and interest income. Now let's check that list against states with a friendly business climate: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/corp_inc.pdf shows that many of the sttes listed above also have low or no corporate tax. (What does this mean? Don't be a pig and people will come to your state to live and work. If you are a pig and generous with your benefits, don't be surprised if you have more people wanting handouts than paying into the system.

Here's a CNN article about GE, a favorite target: http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/ GE reported a US tax loss of $408 million, and an international overal gain of $10.8 billion. Because of this, they got a US tax benefit of 1.1 million of your tax dollars. On the other hand, they paid taxes to more than 250 jurisdictions around the world.

Here's at least a somewhat fair quote about what it all means: http://theweek.com/article/index/213590/why-doesnt-general-electric-pay-taxes

Blame the tax system: The problem here is not that GE is a "greedy corporation," says James Joyner at Outside the Beltway, but that we have a "humungous tax code" with loopholes that "amount to corporate welfare." We can't blame GE for maximizing its profits within the system and rules we've created for it.
"GE pays zero taxes: Hate the game, not the player"

Blame our corporate tax rate in particular: The U.S. corporate tax rate is, at 35 percent, "the highest in the world" says Conn Carroll at Heritage.org. So it's no surprise that GE does everything it can to avoid paying it. Until we reduce the corporate tax rate to something more competitive, companies like GE will continue to flee offshore. "Our system is clearly broken." It's time for the government to fix it.
"General Electric's Jeffrey Immelt: Looter or producer?"

Blame the politicians: The "culprit" here is our political system, says Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, which has structured a "Byzantine" tax code to "curry favors and pick winners and losers in the market." So what has the Obama administration done to help end this? It has made Jeffrey Immelt, GE's chief executive, chairman of his council on jobs and competitiveness. No doubt Obama's latest hire will do all he can to maintain the status quo. "Thieves are rarely interested in catching other thieves."

Once again, it's SIMPLE ECONOMICS. Ireland's corporate tax rate is 12.5%. Any wonder why corporations are sending manufacturing facilities to Ireland? So if we want jobs to stay in the US, we need a lower corporate tax rate to encourage them to stay here. That's why I HOPE California is stupid enough to insist on taxing Amazon. When Amazon leave, it will be an example to the rest of the country of what NOT to do.