I previously wrote Part 1, which questions assumptions that everything is better when globalized.
California is now taxing internet companies that have no physical presence in-state, and use no state services. Their stated intent (a.k.a. spin) is that in order to provide fairness and equality to everybody in-state and out-of-state. I think the concept of taxing outside of state borders in order to create “fairness” is a subversibly bad idea.
Companies targeted for new taxes say, “If our office catches fire, we’re not going to call the Sacramento fire department.” California states, “California employers are no longer at a disadvantage with out-of-state, on-line companies,” and that web retailers had been using a loophole that allows them to charge nearly 10% less. Do you see the philosophical difference?
Let’s spin this correctly… Dear California, you have chosen to charge the 10% more to local companies with aggressive tax policies because of some perceived benefit for doing so. It’s not that other companies get to charge 10% less. Also, if California tax policies are to sculpt the “fairness” landscape, let’s properly call it facism or socialism. If instead, taxes are for a servant government to operate, then let’s show how these taxes are to provided services to the taxed.
California’s goal to tax everybody is just trying to spread the pain equally in and out of state borders, so they don’t look so bad. If California local companies are at a tax disadvantages, how about you change what you SHOULD control — the local tax rate they suffer. Because California is too aggressive with taxes and spending, they are attempting to globalize the problem, but rather locally fix it.