[mdiep]

I don't think that's really a fair treatment of the issue.

It probably doesn't make sense, from a business standpoint, for Amazon to maintain their facilities there if Texas can make them collect sales tax. So Amazon would probably save money by moving the facility. But it still costs money for them to move, which they'd rather not do.

So consider these two options:

A) Amazon is forced to collect sales tax. Amazon moves the facilities to a different state. Texas still doesn't collect sales tax, and also loses 5,000 jobs! Amazon has to pay for new facilities/relocation.

B) Amazon isn't forced to collect sales tax. Amazon stays. Texas retains the 5,000 jobs, but also gains 5,000 new jobs. Amazon doesn't have to pay to relocate.

Either way, the state isn't going to collect sales tax. So why bother enacting the law? It's really a choice between keeping or losing the jobs, not between collecting or not collecting sales tax.

Amazon recognizes this. So rather than both lose money, Amazon proposes to Texas that they invest more in their infrastructure their, create new jobs, and indirectly fund the Texas government through income and property taxes.

(It may also make sense for Texas to pursue enforcement as a way to blackmail Amazon into investing more into their state.)

Politicians would do well to recognize that their actions don't exist in a vacuum. Businesses will react to maximize profits. So even though something might on paper bring in money, it's possible that in reality it will only cost money.

[ralfd]

Amazon promised 5000 jobs but they actually only employ 119 people in Texas:

"Deuell also said he was skeptical that Amazon could deliver on its promise of 5,000 jobs and $300 million in capital investments by the end of 2013.

"I don't see how in the world they can provide 5,000 jobs at distribution centers. Those operate very efficiently, with computers and mechanized things," Deuell said. "I don't want to doubt their word and their intentions; I just don't see how they bring 5,000 jobs to the state."

Texas and Amazon have been at odds over the collection of online sales taxes since last September, when Comptroller Susan Combs sent Amazon the $269 million bill, covering sales taxes it failed to collect from 2005 to 2009.

Amazon responded by saying it would close the Irving facility, eliminating 119 jobs. Amazon also said it was scrapping other plans to expand in Texas, accusing the state of having "an unfavorable regulatory climate.""

[leot]

Amazon doesn't lose money necessarily, it just becomes less competitive (especially with vendors that are have charge sales tax). Boohoo.

I had thought sales taxes were the darlings of the anti-tax crowd ... because, you know, they're so "fair".

[alanfalcon]

A straight, simple nation-wide sales tax with the proper exemptions and prebate system in place would go a long way towards making the tax code in the country reasonable and, yes, fair.

But to say that the mess of the current per-state sales tax system has any relation to the FairTax is nonsensical.

[slessard]

A nation-wide sales tax would be hazardous because it requires Congress to be involved in the restructuring. These are the same people responsible for the Internal Revenue Code and even after 90 years of experience, the Code fails to meet any normal standards for a simple, efficient, and effective tax on income.

[ewams]

Texas doesn't have income tax.