21–30 of 32 posts
On top of the ridiculous sales tax bill have you seen the Babysitter bill? http://www.theunion.com/ARTICLE/20110830/BREAKINGNEWS/110839... 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.
On top of the ridiculous sales tax bill have you seen the Babysitter bill? http://www.theunion.com/ARTICLE/20110830/BREAKINGNEWS/110839... 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.
On top of the ridiculous sales tax bill have you seen the Babysitter bill? http://www.theunion.com/ARTICLE/20110830/BREAKINGNEWS/110839... 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.
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).
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.
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 col…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
"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 p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
They're "blackmailing" the politicians by making it look like they don't want jobs in California. That's a pretty sensitive subject to be voting against...at least when Amazon frames the argument that way. 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"?
[0] http://jan.ocregister.com/2011/06/29/amazon-terminates-deal-...
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/09/02/amazon-off...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 p…
Your friends ask you for money to watch your kids? Wow.
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 col…
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.
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your friends ask you for money to watch your kids? Wow.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're "blackmailing" the politicians by making it look like they don't want jobs in California. That's a pretty sensitive subject to be voting against...at least when Amazon frames the argument that way. 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"?
How do you get the 2% number? From what I found, the Governor's office expects $200million in extra tax revenue per year from doing this [0]. 7,000 jobs [1] is $350million per year, if the jobs pay about $40K/year (which means the cost to the employer, after payroll taxes and overhead, is at least $50K... 7K * 50K == 350mill.) [0] http://jan.ocregister.com/2011/06/29/amazon-terminates-deal-... [1] http://www.forbes.c…
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.