Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Named the "Most Reputable Company"
An anonymous reader writes "Amazon has been named the most reputable company in the US this year (up from 21st place last year), according to the sixth annual list of the 150 Most Reputable Companies from advisory firm Reputation Institute (RI), in partnership with Forbes Media. The list is based on RI's US RepTrak Pulse Study, which measures trust, esteem, admiration, and good feelings consumers have towards the largest 150 companies based on revenue in the US. The ratings are analyzed from nearly 33,000 online consumer responses taken in January and February."
At some point, we have to figure out how e-tailers can and should responsibly collect sales taxes. Amazon could be helping that process, instead of fighting it tooth and nail.
At some point, we have to figure out how e-tailers can and should responsibly collect sales taxes. Amazon could be helping that process, instead of fighting it tooth and nail.
One of Amazon's advantages is that they don't require sales taxes, which can often result in the product costing less even with shipping charges. Once they are required to collect sales taxes they'll lose that price advantage and will likely lose sales because of it. It is not in their corporate interest to 'help' in the process.
...to make me regret closing my account in protest at the treatment of Wikileaks.
Fuck Amazon.
you had me at #!
Yeah, how dare they don't just bow down to all these lame cash grabs by various state governments! They should know it's their duty to make up for all the shortfalls of politicians who can't learn to cut their own spending habits! Maybe we should send their execs to gitmo to make them learn how a truly patriotic company should work!
I'd mod this one "+5 Funny".
Amazon really is a great company to buy from. I have been purchasing from them more than any other etaler now it seems. I have even replaced some items that we would buy at Target or Costco and purchase them from now. I have had to deal with customer service a few times and it has been a pleasurable experience. I also stand with amazon as far as sales taxes go. I also run a small business online and I cant collect taxes from hundreds of counties across the US. I could be for a flat national sales tax maybe though.
I just ran across a book the other day that cost more on amazon.ca than on amazon.com. Not sure how that works. There is no duty. The difference in shipping costs of the printed book should be moot especially where I am, within fifty miles of Niagara Falls. And to top it off, the Canadian dollar has been worth more than the U.S. dollar for the past few months. Amazon had no good reason to charge almost ten dollars more to Canadians for the same book. Not very reputable if you ask me. But since they bought bookpool.com a few years ago, they're the only real game in town.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Howcome they didn't rate in the top half on their own poll?
Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost. Besides, if they actively negotiate with these states they may find a solution acceptable to those states, that actually does not sting as bad as expected. And, anyways, many other e-tailers collect those taxes and still manage to prosper.
While it is disheartening that Amazon shafted WikiLeaks, they are free to do as they wish with their private enterprise; most likely the decision was made by those with a financial stake in the company, not by those with a strong sense of idealism regarding freedom of speech. There very likely would have been no issue in the eyes of Amazon's stakeholders if their government weren't so heavy-handed and secretive.
So, I say don't shoot the messenger. Amazon does incredible things and has contributed a great deal to the evolution and adoption of improved technology in business through their various services and open source efforts. It is a narrow mind that cannot take the good with the bad in a world run by balding apes.
First, it's pretty hard for people to get an unfavorable opinion of Amazon from anything that doesn't happen directly to them (as opposed to, say, BP getting unfavorables based on Deepwater Horizon from people who live nowhere near the Gulf of Mexico). Second, their customer service is pretty good. My wife's Kindle, which I bought about two years ago, had an untimely meeting with a Diet Coke back in October. I had bought the extended warranty, which came with a one-time we-don't-care-why-it-died replacement clause, mainly because her electronics have a surprisingly high rate of mysterious death. Despite the fact that the warranty is technically sold by another company, not Amazon, I got ZERO runaround - instead I was seamlessly transferred from Kindle support to the warranty processing people, who pulled up all the necessary information. The replacement stopped erasing its screen properly this week, so I called Amazon again yesterday - and again, got a no-hassle experience (the only stupid hoop to jump through was that they wanted me to reboot it once). The replacement's replacement will be here tomorrow. And they've paid the shipping both ways, every time, even including a prepaid shipping label so that all I have to do is drop it off at a post office.
Customer service, in short, works.
The ratings are analyzed from nearly 33,000 online consumer responses taken in January and February.
2 months. 33,000 reports. Seriously? This "award" is worthless.
how is babby formed?
Amazon does a very good job of looking after their customers' interests. Even when those interests include letting other people pay for police, fire suppression and education.
There's not really any negotiation to be done with the states. The states believe that Amazon should collect and forward sales taxes for them, despite receiving no services from those states. Amazon thinks that lacking a physical presence in a state exempts them from that. There's not really a compromise position where they collect half the tax, or something. And as long as Amazon keeps its presence out of those states, they'll keep winning - there's no way to enforce a judgement against them, even in a court ruled that the state had standing to sue them.
The most reputable company is among the most tax-evading
You make it sound like sales tax is some noble charity that they should be ashamed of themselves for jumping at the chance to pay. How about instead we end Sales tax for For both Online and Local Businesses?
I've seen all sorts of scams running on Amazon and they don't give a fuck. A few examples that I've seen so far:
Counterfeit items.
Products advertised as £0.01 with the actual cost in a fake shipping charge.
There are hundreds of thousands of "books" which are actually auto generated pamphlets consisting of a main Wikipedia article and some linked articles, selling for £30+ and almost all rated 1 star by anyone who bought one. (Search for Betascript on amazon)
Crap watches selling for £10, supposedly reduced from £50 or whatever. I know someone who bought one of these thinking she was getting a bargain but the watch was barely worth £5 let alone £50.
I'd also include Amazon themselves automatically charging £50 for prime after the free trial. It was stated in the terms but they must have made millions from people who didn't notice.
And it's none of the state's business to collect taxes on something I bought from another state, which is Amazon's completely valid argument. One could argue that they should be collecting taxes on the state from which the item is shipping since there's the obvious physical presence (this would more closely mimic what happens when I buy an item at retail), but I think sales tax is bullshit to begin with since the state is providing no value to either the buyer or the seller, other than merely existing.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
No, I don't forget - I'm aware that people are supposed to pay use taxes; they just don't, because they're vanishingly unlikely to be caught. Of course, those people also pay income tax, property tax, car registration, etc., to their state and local governments. And some of those state and local governments offer very, very limited services - remember the shitstorm here when the city fire department in a small town in rural Tennessee let a house burn down because its owner lived outside the city limits and had failed to purchase their fire protection plan despite multiple reminders? - and so it's kind of hard to understand what responsibility Amazon has to places that it doesn't get jack from. After all, while collecting and forwarding sales taxes isn't impossibly difficult, it's also not free.
Have you considered Tuscan Whole Milk, 1 Gallon, 128 fl oz? It gets rave reviews! It's a kind of human milkiness, a great party beverage, and it has been known to save lives. Nearly everyone agrees, Tuscan Whole Milk, 1 Gallon, 128 fl oz is well worth the fifty bucks.
While you're at it, consider tossing a Three Wolf Moon shirt in your shopping cart.
And at no extra charge it comes with the complementary erasing of controversial material!
I've about had it with companies this big looking to get out of paying taxes. We've got a congress that wants to cut a supplemental nutrition program for infants and pregnant women in poverty so Amazon can skip out on taxes, pay lobbyists and provide unfair competition to mom and pop bookstores.
I say fuck 'em. I've got no problem paying taxes and I've got no problem paying the stiff sales tax we've got here in Chicago. They like to use the nice internet the government made for them but they don't want to give anything back. Meanwhile, Borders is closing stores and the little bookstores where I shop can't even make ends meet.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And it's none of the state's business to collect taxes on something I bought from another state, which is Amazon's completely valid argument. One could argue that they should be collecting taxes on the state from which the item is shipping since there's the obvious physical presence (this would more closely mimic what happens when I buy an item at retail), but I think sales tax is bullshit to begin with since the state is providing no value to either the buyer or the seller, other than merely existing.
Actually, Use Tax is applicable to products purchased out of state when no sales tax was collected (in states that have sales and/or use taxes).
The "150 Most Reputable Companies" from a sample size of 150? Seems more like "the largest 150 companies sorted by reputation".
In this case, the tax avoiders are the citizens who order things off the internet without paying their proper use tax. Not Amazon - at most, their duty is to collect the tax, not to pay it.
Incidentally, to the extent that the Internet is something "the government made for them", it's a product of the federal government - which does not collect sales tax.
I am pleased to announce that I have just formed the "Most Ethical & Respected Slashdot Reader Institute." Please send your contributions to my paypal account, so that I many conduct a purely scientific, and completely unbiased survey. I will post the results in a slashdot article I plan to submit later.
Hey if Obama can win a Nobel peace prize, and Microsoft is rated as the 4th most ethical company, and Amazon is the most respected company in the world - how could my results be any worse?
Was going to ask where Goldman Sach, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mac, Citigroup and Comcast were...but after looking at the list they are down there with ExxonMobil and News Corp? But I can trust News Corp, Glen Beck told me so!
Selex
their food is expensive, even by NYC standards, and often not very fresh; i think that the logistics for books and electronics just don't translate well. i wouldn't buy, say, vegetable oil at amazon, much less meat or vegetables.
as far as non-food items, i mostly agree.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Except that this isn't tax evasion by a big company, it's tax evasion by individuals. Many states have a use tax that you have to pay for items purchased out of state, but people don't seem too keen on paying them.
Corporate tax evasion is a serious issue, but Amazon not paying states it doesn't have locations in isn't an egregious violation. If you want to get angry about something, get angry about Exxon entirely dodging federal taxes by going offshore.
Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost.
Drivel. Companies have a fiduciary duty to make a profit. "reputable" means how you go about trying to make a profit, not whether or not you prioritize making a profit. Then again .... I'm an idiot ......
...... and idiots rule the world....
This story on general principle.
This entire situation has been hashed over, and over and over, since mail order buying began well over 150 years ago.
A state cannot require a retailer in another state to collect taxes for it. Period. Nothing has changed that would affect this.
Every bit of this idea is nothing but the same sh*t, different day. There is nothing to be seen here. Move along.
Newegg gets my vote. I don't know about the rest of you guys/gals, but my experience with Newegg rocks! That's not to say that won't turn 180 and turn into total douche bags, but that's a hypothetical tomorrow. Today however, they have my love :)
Life is not for the lazy.
They do responsibly collect sales tax. They collect sales tax for the state that they reside in and states that they have a physical presence in, just as they are supposed to. They do not collect sales tax in states where they have no presence and where the government has no authority to make them collect sales tax. However, despite what some people have said, e-tailers do not have any kind of price advantage over local stores as the buyer is still legally responsible to pay Use Tax on the items purchased. It is not the e-tailers fault if you break the law.
Heck I think it is wrong that states force retailers to collect sales tax for them. In my state, not only do they make me as a retailer do their job for them, but they charge me $50 a year for the privilege of doing their job for them.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The question at issue isn't what is in Amazon's corporate interest. It's whether Amazon merits the "most reputable company" designation that has been given it, in light of the fact that its business model basically involves evading state sales tax, which any company that sells out of a physical location is required to collect. That is a controversial business model, at a minimum.
Pursuing shareholder value and behaving reputably are obviously different things.
Unless, of course, the retailer has a presence in that other state. Which Amazon does, have affiliates all over the place.
That's besides the point, though. Quite aside from their tax strategy, given that Amazon is a bunch of patent-abusing censoring bastards, no sane and informed person can call them "reputable".
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
So ah . . . #3 has been in a product recall death spiral for more than a year, hasn't it?
You want polls? Here's a bunch: the Worst Company in America tournament. Amazon isn't in it.
I've had decent service from Amazon. They could be the most beloved of all the large companies. Which maybe is saying they're the nicest turd in the latrine. That a Worst Company contest exists is merely emphasizing what we all know, which is that large corporations have far too much power. As the saying goes, power corrupts. We do have problems getting these 900 pound gorillas to behave responsibly, and not lobby for unfairly favorable treatment and sweet rent seeking or monopolistic arrangements, or just plain stupid laws, such as ACTA. They get their way on such matters far too often.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
"Unless, of course, the retailer has a presence in that other state."
Well, true. But then they're not "in another state". They're in that state.
Washington State has tried -- and maybe succeeded, I am not sure -- to collect taxes from Microsoft's corporate sales branch, which is incorporated in Nevada, on the basis that Microsoft's actual main offices are in Washington State. I am not really sure of the outcome of that, but the State might have a valid argument.
As an author (for a small engineering publisher) Amazon is very much a mixed blessing. It's true that Amazon can sell some books, but they insist on huge discounts and nasty terms. There have been times when our publisher didn't accept the terms and then our books have been listed on Amazon as "out of print" -- a bold faced lie. Other times our books have been listed as long lead time (6 weeks, etc) items -- which means that Amazon is going to hold the customer order until they have enough to order a larger quantity of books from the small publisher. Both of these have the "black ball" effect of dissuading potential customers from looking further...since everyone knows that Amazon has everything, right? Another problem is that at various times, Amazon's price in USA has been 10% higher than the full retail price direct from the publisher.
lesson of this story...never let your employer know about ether your facebook or twitter accounts :P
I live in a state where Amazon has a presence so I still have to pay sales tax (8.85%), and generally Amazon's prices are still lower than the brick-and-mortar stores. I always group my orders into $25+ bundles for free shipping, though.
At some point, we have to figure out how e-tailers can and should responsibly collect sales taxes. Amazon could be helping that process, instead of fighting it tooth and nail.
Not everyone agrees that Amazon has a responsibility to volunteer to pay taxes they don't legally have to:
Why was this survey only issued online? Don't get me wrong, I love amazon and think it deserved to win but isnt this data flawed as the people polled are more likely to be online shoppers? THey should have had other distribution methods of the survey as well!
So if Amazon pay tax to a State they have no phyical presense in, what do Amazon or it's customers get back .... nothing
They are not using any services that have not already been paid for and taxed so what exactly are they paying taxes for?
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
or maybe we need a taxation system that isn't insane to begin with.
If your state isn't providing any value to you, then you may have a problem, yes, but instead of not paying taxes, you should probably consider getting what you want out of the government. You do have a right to petition them after all.
where do you live? here in the states that would get you nowhere unless your wealth amounts to millions at a minimum.
Are they not providing enough law and order? Not stopping enough pollution? Perhaps not protecting your rights in some ways??
too much 'law', too much micromanagement of my life. protecting my rights is easy: just repeal the garbage laws which were bought and paid for by the wealthy.
Or are you one of those types that believes you can do it all yourself?
false dilemma. a nanny state does not help someone who cannot do it all himself. it takes his rights away while throwing him a few bones every now and then.. subsistence is not existence in a free nation.
I've about had it with companies this big looking to get out of paying taxes. We've got a congress that wants to cut a supplemental nutrition program for infants and pregnant women in poverty so Amazon can skip out on taxes, pay lobbyists and provide unfair competition to mom and pop bookstores.
or how about those women take responsibility for themselves and get abortions if they can't afford to have those kids? isn't that what they wanted the right to choose for? that way less tax needs to be paid because of irresponsible behavior.
I say fuck 'em. I've got no problem paying taxes and I've got no problem paying the stiff sales tax we've got here in Chicago. They like to use the nice internet the government made for them but they don't want to give anything back. Meanwhile, Borders is closing stores and the little bookstores where I shop can't even make ends meet.
I guess you aren't counted among those who DO have a problem paying it..literally. you know...like those poor helpless women you mentioned?
Too bad the feds can't step in to help simplify sales tax collection methods among the states.
The constitution says that duties shall not be placed on goods because they are headed to or through another state. That's a good thing. It's the way it should be. If they want to collect taxes on those purchases they can collect them from the purchaser. If they can't manage that then they will have to find another way to collect those monies, like getting them from property taxes or from income taxes. Graduated income taxes are the fairest way to effectively tax that kind of economic activity because it's not supposed to matter to the collecting state where the goods are coming from, apparently. So just tax the people who can afford to buy shit and let them either buy shit or lose money to no end.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Amazon has free porn?
Ah, you almost had a little logical implosion there. I applaud you for leaving it in. It shows honesty.
Perhaps "sales tax" is not the best way to get Amazon to pay their share of the bill for participating in our society, which has made them so very successful.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No. We have seen the "internet" as made by private industry and it's cable television. Remember how it was supposed to be all "interactive" and "democratic" and there would be so much "public access"?
If the "internet" would have come about any way but by the Federal government and other publicly supported institutions (like universities) we wouldn't need keyboards.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You're right. I withdraw my wrong-headed argument that Amazon should pay sales tax.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I remember when the incident you're talking about with Texas came up. Wasn't it the case that Texas basically invited them to come to TX in the first place with the promise of no sales tax, and then turned around a couple of years later and reversed course?
Even if not, the problem is the fundamental structure of Sales tax - not Amazon's unwillingness to pay it. No company that does business online wants to collect sales tax, and I'll tell you why, as a small business, I am interested in Amazon's case: because if Amazon has to collect tax for not just all 50 states but every county in every state where sales tax is variable (and sometimes even on the local level), you've just driven up the cost of business to the point where it is no longer feasible to start an online business in your garage/bedroom/basement because you need very sophisticated software to handle the collection side and an accounting team to handle the payment side: small business owners like me already have to learn a lot about accounting (which is fine, and even perversely fun sometimes) but if we had to file returns with every state with which we did business? omgwtfbbq.
If you left it up to me, I'd replace sales tax entirely with a Federal sales tax that had a state reimbursement system. I don't mind collecting tax and passing it on to the government for you. I mind having to spend twice my annual gross income calculating and then delivering that tax to every state in the union.
A virtual "store" is the transaction between customer and shopper. When that book or CD shows up on my doorstep, me, the book or CD, the guy in brown pants bringing the book or CD up the stairs, his truck, the street, streetlights and police to keep those streets safe are certainly a "physical presence".
Do you believe that a lack of "physical presence" should exempt a corporation from all taxes? Or a lack of "physical presence" should exempt them from all laws?
I admit that I was wrong-headed about Amazon and sales tax. But not because they lack a "physical presence".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Texas does not have state income tax. We pay a higher sales tax than most I've seen (8.25 percent on non food items, excluding "impulse buys" like candies and sodas) but don't have the income tax. If every state did this and/or the federal government did this, it could increase the money the government receives.
Everybody spends money. The more money you make, the more money you spend. Erego, the rich pay more in taxes instead of less while the poor pay less in taxes instead of more.
There's a big difference between offshoring to evade taxes and not bowing down to every cash grab from politicians who don't want to have to curb their own spending habits so they basically drive companies out of their state by slapping tons of taxes on them. If you thinking paying more and more in taxes is such a great thing, why don't you voluntarily increase the amount you pay in taxes?
From TFA:
The list is based on RI's US RepTrak Pulse Study, which measures trust, esteem, admiration, and good feelings consumers have towards the largest 150 companies based on revenue in the US.
You think the average consumer even knows about Wikileaks in any detail (especially in regards to your complaint against Amazon), let alone cares?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
From TFA: "IBM, Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle were all very close: 44th, 46th, 47th, and 49th, respectively."
Three companies that help keep Americans fat and a pharmaceutical. No wonder the world thinks so little of us.
I've never ever ever never ever taken the lack of sales tax into account when buying stuff from Amazon or not. It's about the availability, the price, and the ease of shopping.
Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost.
While I don't disagree with your sentiment, nothing in the article defines reputable as such. There are plenty of people who think a company who tries to earn more profit is therefore more reputable than a company who fritters profit away for altruistic reasons.
For the record, I hate those type of people.
States put those statutes on the books. Does not mean they are constitutional, however.
STATES RIIIIGHTS!!!!! Deeeeeerp!
(I'm from Texas, sorry. I couldn't help myself.)
Their Amazon Credit Card charged me a $30 late fee even though it wasn't late. It was sent out at the same time as another card and the other bill made it just fine. And the Indian call-center employee was rude about it when I called, insisting it was my fault. Screw them!
Table-ized A.I.
I did.
Valore + Amazon ( Valore's search is useless ) + google checkout is a fine substitute for buying books from Amazon.
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
California and New York (the two places I've lived) both have sales tax of at least 8.25% in urban and suburban areas. It's been at least 8.5% in the particular cities I've lived in.
Also, both states have some of the highest state income and other taxes around. And both states have budget issues, quite severe ones actually.
Now, I do like the idea of no income tax but a higher sales tax, but I'm not sure it would work out to be feasible. And many of the rich would end up with an effective tax cut - if you're a miser and don't spend any money, then you wouldn't pay any tax. You'd need the sales tax percentage to vary by each person's income, which is entirely infeasible.
Gotta love the anarchist spirit in this one, my heart goes out to anyone who gets ethical kudos for having a business based on not paying taxes. Woot!
I think you hit the nail on the head here.
For example, in Chicago there are state sales taxes, county sales taxes, city sales taxes, and even special "business district" sales taxes in part of the city (the area around the convention center, downtown, etc. - designed to hit the tourist and business traveller) Certain items, like food or medicine, are expempt from some of the taxes, but not from others; and just what counts as food or medicine can vary, also. Then other items, like soft drinks, may have additional taxes imposed. This is hard to figure out if you have only one or two stores in the area. If you are an out-of-state entity with customers from anywhere, it would be a nightmare.
At some point, we have to figure out how e-tailers can and should responsibly collect sales taxes.
Weren't such things were already figured out back in the days of mail-order catalogs?
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
And the purchaser - NOT THE SELLER - is responsible for use taxes.
Of course, the utterly vast majority of folks don't pay use tax, even among those that know of it. Sort of illustrates our viewpoint on taxes if we're not being threatened over non-payment.
It's an advantage, but I still buy everything on Amazon and Amazon collects sales tax here.
Especially with prime. It's cheaper and more convenient than driving or walking to a store.
They do pay sales tax in states where they have a physical presence, or rather their customers do. I pay Kentucky sales tax whenever I buy something from Amazon, and I have no problem doing so. If people in other states aren't paying the use tax, how is that Amazon's fault? It has no say in how those people file their tax returns.
No, you're right. Different states do things differently.
I was wrong. State and local taxes should not be collected by Amazon. But I'm afraid that if they aren't, there are going to be more draconian measures to collect them, such as Amazon having to report transactions to taxing bodies.
Thing is, nothing is for free. Over and over again, Americans, including the people who don't want to pay taxes, expect a certain level of government services but don't want to pay for them. The reason we've got this ridiculously complex system is because of all the special interest (money) groups that have gotten sweetheart tax laws passed just for them. Tax breaks for corn growers who make ethanol while food prices skyrocket, tax subsidies to Exxon and GE, that sort of thing.
I used to work for the company that publishes the Revenue Act and all the tax laws. CCH is like WestLaw for tax law. I had to read a ridiculous amount of the 20k plus pages that make up that law and precious few of the complexities are there in order to protect the incomes of regular working people. Want to raise purebred racehorses? There's a tax law for you. Own a huge farming corporation like ADM? There's thousands of pages of goodies for you. Not a lot of pages for you and me, because we don't have lobbyists.
Used to be the only lobbyists that regular people had were called "labor unions". They're gone now, except for public employees and a tiny sliver of the work force. Once they're gone, we have absolutely nobody looking out for us when it comes to having a voice in government. At that point, the only big money that will be in our elections will come from big corporations.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's Amazon's customers debt, I think. The state governments are just used to retailers collecting it from their customers for them. (back in the days when Australia had sales tax, manufacturers would claim exemption[1] from sales tax when buying from retailers, which seems to indicate it isn't something the retailer owes, but something the purchaser does. So the redirect you suggest could collect the sales tax from the end customer. A lot more bureaucracy for governments, which is why they try to force Amazon to be their collector.
[1] because they'd charge sales tax on their 'downstream' products.
Texas definitely has a problem, but arguably it's not quite as much of a fundamental structural issue as CA and NY. I was in NY from 1998-2010 and they definitely have one of the most top-heavy, ungainly governments around.
Texas passes a budget every two years, so I assume that their $27 billion shortfall is therefore over a two-year period, whereas California's $26 billion deficit is one year. Even were that not the case, the real problem in California's case (and NY's) is unfunded pension liabilities. Texas is a Right to Work state and isn't on the hook to the same extent for public pensions. That's the big elephant in the room for a lot of states (Illinois is up there with CA and NY) -- they've got serious problems now, but they're going to get a heck of a lot worse.
In other words, I'd much rather have to fix Texas' problems than California's or New York's.