Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Well there's a new development in the California Internet sales tax law that Amazon.com.
Has been bucking.
The all -- retailers offering a higher 7000 California workers.
And invests up to 500 million in new facilities there if the state will strike down its restrictive tax law.
So the companies have to effectively -- federal and state governments just to keep a competitive edge here to discuss are the freedom fighters.
America's Future Foundation -- -- Foster democratic analyst Eric Dowdell -- Loyola university economics professor Dan DiMicco.
-- start with you.
It is is Amazon.com.
Bribing California air and and if so is this something that's not really a free market agenda.
I wouldn't call -- Bribery I think if you're trying to grow your tax revenue.
It's better for citizens and it's better for consumers to grow your net amount of economic wealth.
As opposed -- increasing new taxes -- increasing your tax rate Amazon's.
Bargain here represents that that truth.
And the policy makers there seemed to thick headed to recognize this and this is all the much more true in the state of a recession.
Adding these sort of tax revenues in constraining business what they're doing is articulating a job amount and no wealth creation amount.
But this tax is a trade off again it's what do you think terror because it's not just to 7000 jobs a lot of people who make their money trading on the Internet doing different things you know facilitating -- I mean I've read something like 20000 people California.
We're talking about people who have jobs responsibilities.
You think the states to take them up on this one.
While adding the -- definitely consider act and this is not unprecedented and precedent excuse me a lot of times companies -- -- And they offer and they will offer incentives to get those companies won best announce they will give you lower taxes a tax abatement.
All these things are done to get companies are investing create jobs so I think this is actually just normal course of action in California should definitely consider it we need more -- But here's -- thing they'll -- -- California to add to that -- point.
-- they're desperate -- -- in a desperate to I think from a political point of view they're afraid of having egg on their face -- think that they'll have that will to say you know what.
The route we -- -- was wrong let's go there if the free market around or or at least the route that creates jobs rather than -- To success you this is a little bit different and then the other circumstance that you outlined there Tara what we actually see happening.
Is Amazon is is coming to them after being being pretty much browbeat.
We're threatening you with higher taxes we'll find we'll give you these jobs if you don't give us these higher taxes.
I think what's really distressing here.
Is that in California where we have twelve plus percent unemployment.
A struggling economy that is pretty much on the rails here.
The legislature is interested in raising taxes I don't see how that makes any sense at all instead of working on getting new revenue here why don't we talk about reforming the prison system which costs about as much as they invest in public.
Public higher education just doesn't make any sense.
And at -- to that point in the last ten years of over million people of left California.
These are people who were productive you know they had degrees they have jobs and these are people who are unproductive.
It would seem at some point the and that would be an epiphany amongst those who run this state that we're doing at the wrong way this sort of counter productive way we're doing it and yet.
This still might be the signal that will get to see -- they turned on Amazon.com.
I think it means that there's no hope for the state.
Well I think overall personal let's remember that taxes and right now in this country at a fifty year low -- also people are paying less taxes then you have companies like GE who pay zero in taxes -- companies -- Google paying 3%.
So the notion that on everybody's being taxed to death is not really completes -- -- -- now I don't.
Wanted to get on the topic too much but we'll bring you back to talk about -- -- thing remember this is Jeff them out and then President Obama it's got a car and also and -- not going to pay I never got over.
Program called -- -- that one OK let's shift gears just a little bit.
Another California nanny state nightmare the state senate is considering new legislation already passed in the assembly that would mandate parents give babysitters a break get this one every two hours and providing substitute babies that are.
Parents will also be required to pay minimum wage plus.
Over time talk about California being that's is this the ultimate nanny state -- I gotta ask you I mean is this gonna help or hurt the massive work.
It's I mean it's it's quite obvious any thinking person understands that this sort of wage floor is necessarily going to create.
Is going to destroy jobs it's going to make it more difficult for people to employ folks to help them.
To rear their kids to do any other sort of service work around the house we just you can't legislate prosperity this way.
We don't want more people having to have their employers purchase their benefits for them we want people to go -- to the market -- do it themselves.
This is not perfect -- professor -- -- -- -- is absolutely in my mind.
Just outrageous not talk about you know the economic impact on this as well as some of the other.
Some of the stupid things are gonna be the result of this -- -- get through.
I'm no babysitting expert but what I do know is that the process of selecting a babysitters very informal and very personal for most people.
Which means that.
In order for this legislation have any teeth whatsoever it would have to be significantly in force and the cost of those enforcement are gonna be really really high so even.
There was a logic.
That this would create better quality baby -- services or licensing or or better quality babysitters -- better working conditions for babysitters.
It has to be at counterbalanced with the recognition that these enforcement costs would be invasive.
Especially in a state like California as was mentioned earlier that has one of the highest incarceration rates in the in.
In the country they're obviously going to be using very invasive methods of enforcing these policies you're better unsavory I don't think anybody would be -- you know -- and Italy there's gilts for everything taxi drivers even babysitters.
And Italy's economy is just going down the tubes right now.
This move toward this kind of thinking.
Is it just because California see it sees itself as the Golden State but it's no longer Goldman this partisan this is one of the stupidest idea I've ever.
Well I'm not a fan of regulating babysitters I was a baby -- once before or not I don't know is -- -- to break okay.
I mean I think this is top I mean the I think you're watching TV you're probably in popcorn and write it so I'd say -- we have was fine when I was a baby -- I don't think we needed these type of regulations on babysitting but there's other parts of his bill.
That applies to domestic workers and people like that and -- should be considered because they're talking about getting those people up Airways now remember we seen net income inequality in this country.
DS -- below see you -- people appear -- that kind of money people down here.
Making very little money and it's becoming a big chasm in this country and that's a recipe for disaster as well you -- -- the middle class you got to grow the working -- He can't just have well.
Split apart like that.
Then do you think that that jobs will be created as a result of this or loss this just frank I don't agree to debate recent apportionment even by the -- another bear Wayne still if it doesn't care what they take the job.
Would -- they just take a job that will well you know what there were some be -- And so they're willing to take whatever they can get.
But we should make sure we're paying people are there weight in this economy people are doing a lot of things and they have to do to -- -- and that's good.
But we have an opportunity to make sure they treated fairly because look if you look at these other countries if you look at China's gift -- -- -- -- growing.
I think I think unfairly on governance would be not paying -- -- -- mystery -- -- -- back and on this go -- you you don't know how to plan for that sort of equality.
I mean the fact of the matter is is that yes people are desperate which is to say that -- are probe being provided with better opportunity by these informal contracts or you can't and bully people into providing better wages and better conditions and he's in buyer and I would adamant one point guys last week last week Larry FitzGerald sign a contract or a 120 million dollars.
And guess what you would never give a baby sitter whose gonna get that kind of money because there's a lot of people look at do with -- they do and there are very few people -- -- -- -- if Israel does that's called income inequality by some I called the American dream.
By the way it was supposed to be released in July and now -- September and the president finally were built the latest deficit figures.
I tell you what in any good news.
Filter by section