Perfect demonstration of the concept of a “Zero Sum Game” - the Equalization Board was smoking some serious weed when they made their revenue projection.
No, they based it on either last years estimate of transaction amounts or an average of the same over the past 5 - 10 year period. Tomorrow, it will be different and CA will be lucky to cover the cost of maintaining and enforcing this new scheme. Plus the cost of picking up some welfare costs for the 25,000 ex-affiliates.
“Perfect demonstration of the concept of a “Zero Sum Game” - the Equalization Board was smoking some serious weed when they made their revenue projection.”
This will not be a “zero sum game” as hundreds of those affiliates move out of state to continue their revenue streams from Amazon. The state will lose hundreds or thousands of jobs and the tax revenues derived from those folks...and the places those people shop will suffer from lower spending by the unemployed or relocated former employees affected by the companies who relocate...no, this is a net loss for California, it may take a year or two to see it...but it is without doubt going to cost the state in tax revenue and prospects of economic growth.
“Zero Sum Game”
Maybe you were being clever here referring to an Obama scheme as a Zero, but what has happened is not a ZSG.
In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant’s gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s).
This thing is just a lose/lose game.