Because we just haven't been able to take enough of your money...

[hjmick]

White House Endorses Internet Sales Tax (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/white-house-endorses-internet-sales-tax_718208.html)


The Administration strongly supports S. 743, which will level the playing field for local small business retailers that are in competition every day with large out-of-state online companies...


I just don't...

You know, there are some places I shop online because the company does not have a local outlet and I can't find what I need or want here in town.


I hope this bill crashes and burns...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

White House Endorses Internet Sales Tax (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/white-house-endorses-internet-sales-tax_718208.html)




I just don't...

You know, there are some places I shop online because the company does not have a local outlet and I can't find what I need or want here in town.


I hope this bill crashes and burns...

White House is not endorsing the internet sales tax in order to help small businesses. They are doing so to reap billions in future taxes solely. This corrupt administration is all about growing government , more power and taking more of our money. The taxes will be paid by the buyers of the products not the sellers. The sellers will simply price in the tax increases in the product price before offering the products online. Obama knows this and does not give a damn. As long as it harms our way of life he glorifies in it , the lying bastard..
I am so damn right about that bastard that it hurts.. -Tyr

[fj1200]

White House Endorses Internet Sales Tax (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/white-house-endorses-internet-sales-tax_718208.html)


The Administration strongly supports provisions in S. 743 that would directly address those concerns by granting only those States and localities that have simplified their sales tax systems the option to require all retailers, including those located out-of-state, to collect sales and use taxes already owed under law. The Administration also is pleased that S. 743 provides an exception for small online businesses and requires States to make available, at no cost to retailers, software that helps calculate the State sales tax on remote transactions, as well as administrative services.

I'm OK with this because it removes the government granted advantage to on-line retailers that penalizes local retailers. Theoretically you owe the states/locals the revenues even if the retailer didn't collect it.


White House is not endorsing the internet sales tax in order to help small businesses. They are doing so to reap billions in future taxes solely.

The tax revenues go to the states and municipalities, not the Feds.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=3980


Obama proposes New Breath Tax

In an effort to pay off the estimated $12 -20 trillion it will take to repair our economy and help clean the environment, President Barack Obama announced the Federal Government will be attaching a tax lien on the amount of air we breathe. Obama explained that people already pay taxes for food, land and water use so the only taxable resource left was the air we breathe.

"If we are going to clean the air, that won't happen for free", Obama told Unconfirmed Sources. "I plan to establish a commission that will ensure healthy, breathable air for generations to come. This will be a small tax so don't worry!"

National Economic Council director Larry Summer explained that each American will pay, on average, $512.00 per year for the privilege of breathing air. This will generate over $153,600,000,000.00 per year for the federal government. The amount of tax each American will be required to pay will be based on the annual amount of air he/she is estimated to have used. Couch potatoes who do not exercise and consume less air would be charged considerably less than athletic people such as runners and hikers.

"I regret that people who use more air will have to pay more", Summer explained. "But such is the cost for living in a free society!"

Obama did state that federal funding would be available for people who breathe but cannot afford the new tax. However, to be granted a breath-tax exemption several criteria would have to be met. Among those criteria are:

*The Breather would have to makes less than $7,800 per year.
*The Breather would need to show he/she is not breathing excessively as defined by Health & Human Services guidelines.
*The Breather must show efforts that he/she is doing all they can to maintain clean air and/or recycle existing air.

"Someday we may not need this tax", Obama proclaimed. "But I don't see that happening in my lifetime!"

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm OK with this because it removes the government granted advantage to on-line retailers that penalizes local retailers. Theoretically you owe the states/locals the revenues even if the retailer didn't collect it.



The tax revenues go to the states and municipalities, not the Feds.

If you think that zero money will go to the Feds over this new tax then you are truly delusional. If that were the case the Feds would not be all for it. -Tyr

[fj1200]

If you think that zero money will go to the Feds over this new tax then you are truly delusional. If that were the case the Feds would not be all for it. -Tyr

Link? Why should on-line retailers be granted a continued advantage?

[hjmick]

I'm OK with this because it removes the government granted advantage to on-line retailers that penalizes local retailers. Theoretically you owe the states/locals the revenues even if the retailer didn't collect it.



The tax revenues go to the states and municipalities, not the Feds.

Not to the feds, yet... Give it time.

And how is this fair to the states that have chosen to not have a sales tax?

[jimnyc]

Of course they support it - Obama and his fellow Dems need to take a piece of EVERY little bit they can so that they can turn it around and support the welfare system and other freebies.

[fj1200]

Not to the feds, yet... Give it time.

A national sales tax is a whole different thing.


And how is this fair to the states that have chosen to not have a sales tax?

As I understand it no-sales-tax states would see no change. It merely requires that on-line retailers pay sales taxes to states in which their customers live.


Although States presently have the authority to tax the sale of goods or services sold from out-of-state vendors, they are prevented under current law from requiring the collection of such duly-enacted taxes. As a consequence, while local small business retailers follow the law and collect sales taxes from customers who make purchases in their stores, many big business online and catalog retailers do not collect the same taxes. Because these out-of-state companies are able to play by a different set of rules, this disparity undermines the ability of cities and States to invest in K-12 education, police and fire protection, access to affordable health care, and funding for roads and bridges. This bill would eliminate the unfair advantage currently enjoyed by big out-of-state online companies over local neighborhood-based small businesses.

It simply repeals the umbrella benefit that the Feds granted. Why should Amazon get a tax break that Best Buy doesn't get?

[Kathianne]

I'm OK with this because it removes the government granted advantage to on-line retailers that penalizes local retailers. Theoretically you owe the states/locals the revenues even if the retailer didn't collect it.



The tax revenues go to the states and municipalities, not the Feds.

Until they get through a VAT.

[fj1200]

Until they get through a VAT.

Katie bar the door if that happens. :eek:

[hjmick]

A national sales tax is a whole different thing.



As I understand it no-sales-tax states would see no change. It merely requires that on-line retailers pay sales taxes to states in which their customers live.



It simply repeals the umbrella benefit that the Feds granted. Why should Amazon get a tax break that Best Buy doesn't get?


Respectfully, I still don't like it.

[fj1200]

Respectfully, I still don't like it.

I understand but I don't like government granted advantages for some either. The time for the exemption has passed, the internet no longer needs to be protected.

[Kathianne]

Cogent reasons against imposing this forced collection:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/24/congress-is-considering-a-bill-to-make-internet-firms-collect-sales-tax-here-s-why-they-shouldn-t-pass-it.html


Congress Is Considering a Bill to Make Internet Firms Collect Sales Tax. Here’s Why They Shouldn’t Pass It. by Megan McArdle (http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/megan-mcardle.html) <time class="timestamp" property="dc:created" datetime="2013-04-24T15:00:00.000Z" pubdate="pubdate">Apr 24, 2013 11:00 AM EDT </time> It’s too burdensome on businesses we want to expand.For years, states have been trying to collect sales taxes from Internet retailers, particularly Amazon. They’ve been stymied by a 1992 Supreme Court ruling, Quill v. North Dakota, which held that under current law, companies could not be forced to collect sales tax unless they had a physical nexus in the state: a warehouse, a production facility, or a sales representative.

...

But there are also reasons to be wary of forcing out-of-state companies to collect your sales tax. For one thing, it erodes the healthy tax competition between states and localities. Right now, the fact that it’s hard to collect sales tax from other states keeps those taxes to reasonable levels; they currently top out around 12 percent. If states and localities didn’t have that competitive restraint, they might well start to rise.


(And before those who want higher taxes cheer, take note: a 20 percent state sales tax would probably make it difficult for the federal government to impose a VAT. And without a VAT, most budget wonks think that in a decade or so, your favorite federal spending programs will probably have to take some deep cuts. It’s just not possible to fund a huge welfare state solely on income taxes. Functionally, high state sales taxes buy you generous pensions for public-sector workers at the expense of entitlements.)


Sales taxes are also regressive. My colleague points out that Internet consumers skew affluent, because you have to have a credit card. Sort of. The rise of prepaid credit cards is actually rapidly changing that, bringing even unbanked consumers online. Of course, the very poorest—the welfare mothers and people on disability—are not buying much. But those people don’t buy much anyway, since they generally have a cash income of less than $1,000 a month.

...


But the biggest concern may be the burden this puts on small business. That burden is smaller than it was in 1992, because there is now software that can help you keep track of all the different regulations. But it remains a burden. Fifty states, umpteen localities, all of them with different rules not only about the rate of tax, but which items are exempt. This is a trivial problem for Amazon. But it is not trivial for small businesses that have to know, say, whether to categorize their cookies as a (usually tax-free) grocery item or a (usually taxed) prepared food.


Businesses in states without a sales tax will have to install a collection system that they currently don’t need—and to pay taxes for services that they don’t receive from faraway states. Yes, their goods travel on the roads, but the shippers are already paying tolls and gas taxes to cover the wear and tear. If we think those tolls and taxes are too low, the right response is to raise them, not impose a completely different (and much higher) tax. My colleague argues that they also use common services like the post office, but, of course, the post office is a nominally unsubsidized service that is paid for by postage and the occasional infusion of income from the federal income tax. Which those businesses are already paying.



We want small businesses to get bigger, spread their wings, engage in interstate commerce. The best way to do this is to minimize the amount of burdensome regulation that we put on them. No, the Internet sales tax will not, by itself, shut down some aspiring small-business owner. That’s not the problem with regulation in this country. The problem is death by a thousand cuts (and 9,000 jurisdictions). Any individual regulation can be justified as a small intrusion. But put them all together and they are a very large burden ... enough to bleed a promising business dry.

...

[fj1200]

Cogent reasons against imposing this forced collection:


We want small businesses to get bigger, spread their wings, engage in interstate commerce.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/24/congress-is-considering-a-bill-to-make-internet-firms-collect-sales-tax-here-s-why-they-shouldn-t-pass-it.html

But what is the cogent reason that local retailers are put at a disadvantage to their online brethren?

[Kathianne]

But what is the cogent reason that local retailers are put at a disadvantage to their online brethren?

So you disagree with one of the points, that's fine. As for an answer to your question, I believe she answered that in the opening paragraph.

[fj1200]

So you disagree with one of the points, that's fine. As for an answer to your question, I believe she answered that in the opening paragraph.

I disagreed with many of them but I thought I'd hit the major one that sums it up for me. Why should we have government favoring some groups to the detriment of others?

[SassyLady]

I disagreed with many of them but I thought I'd hit the major one that sums it up for me. Why should we have government favoring some groups to the detriment of others?

Because the government doesn't know how to create parity on anything else, why should this one be different?

[Robert A Whit]

Link? Why should on-line retailers be granted a continued advantage?

If anybody really wants to cut down on emissions, shopping on line is a very good way to cut them down. The feds supposedly think that is a great idea yet they want to force a tax hike down our throats.

Sure Obama wants this. He loves tax hikes. Any and all tax hikes.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I disagreed with many of them but I thought I'd hit the major one that sums it up for me. Why should we have government favoring some groups to the detriment of others?

You mean like obama and crew did so many times so far??
When they picked who to bail out and who to not bail out. Why wasn't that money given in exact equal amounts to all?

You see giving to all has never been the plan by anybody ever. Not even the ones that religiously believe in it. The big - G AND C- takes over, human nature Greed and Corruption always comes into play.

Describing the damn taxing as an attempt at only being fair is pure bullshit and you know it. It's all about the damn Greed and billions to steal from amigo.-Tyr

[aboutime]

You mean like obama and crew did so many times so far??
When they picked who to bail out and who to not bail out. Why wasn't that money given in exact equal amounts to all?

You see giving to all has never been the plan by anybody ever. Not even the ones that religiously believe in it. The big - G AND C- takes over, human nature Greed and Corruption always comes into play.

Describing the damn taxing as an attempt at only being fair is pure bullshit and you know it. It's all about the damn Greed and billions to steal from amigo.-Tyr


Tyr. On the heels of all of this talk from Congress, and the approval of Obama for taxing the Internet.

I wonder. Can anyone HONESTLY state, or remember anything the Government, run by congress has been successful at? Other than demanding that taxes are good for the economy. We all know that is the OBAMA/CONGRESSIONAL/IRS principle that fails the most.

[fj1200]

Because the government doesn't know how to create parity on anything else, why should this one be different?

Shouldn't we encourage them?


If anybody really wants to cut down on emissions, shopping on line is a very good way to cut them down. The feds supposedly think that is a great idea yet they want to force a tax hike down our throats.

Sure Obama wants this. He loves tax hikes. Any and all tax hikes.

I'm not sure emissions are the reason for the plan but what about all the trips we make to brick and mortar stores for the education and then go home to buy on-line for the best price and to save on sales tax? Seems counterintuitive to me if emissions are your concern.


You mean like obama and crew did so many times so far??
When they picked who to bail out and who to not bail out. Why wasn't that money given in exact equal amounts to all?

Government sucks and bailing out shouldn't be in their realm but here we are... And thank you for answering the question.


You see giving to all has never been the plan by anybody ever. Not even the ones that religiously believe in it. The big - G AND C- takes over, human nature Greed and Corruption always comes into play.

Describing the damn taxing as an attempt at only being fair is pure bullshit and you know it. It's all about the damn Greed and billions to steal from amigo.-Tyr

It's fair to the states who are missing out on sales tax revenue and it's fair to the local retailers who won't be fighting unfair competition anymore. Everything connected to BO is not the epitome of greed and evil.

I'd far rather have states in line for revenue than the Feds and this is along those lines.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Shouldn't we encourage them?



I'm not sure emissions are the reason for the plan but what about all the trips we make to brick and mortar stores for the education and then go home to buy on-line for the best price and to save on sales tax? Seems counterintuitive to me if emissions are your concern.



Government sucks and bailing out shouldn't be in their realm but here we are... And thank you for answering the question.



It's fair to the states who are missing out on sales tax revenue and it's fair to the local retailers who won't be fighting unfair competition anymore. Everything connected to BO is not the epitome of greed and evil.

I'd far rather have states in line for revenue than the Feds and this is along those lines.

I agree with that part(bolded above) but the current system is the states send the money to the Federal government it then dishes back what it wants to in accordance to how much power each states lets it steal and how many votes are contributed to dem party candidates ..-Tyr

[fj1200]

I agree with that part(bolded above) but the current system is the states send the money to the Federal government it then dishes back what it wants to in accordance to how much power each states lets it steal and how many votes are contributed to dem party candidates ..-Tyr

What? Sales taxes are not remitted to the Feds only to be returned later.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What? Sales taxes are not remitted to the Feds only to be returned later.

Not yet anyways, right? Give Obama time for Christ sakes! Previously internet sales were not taxed either, see how that works? One change begets another! It's tha socialist way....
Just wait until the dems get yet again both House with Obama still as president. We will see changes forced upon us that are likely to force a civil war. And that quite likely is indeed Obama and his handlers plan..-Tyr

[fj1200]

Not yet anyways, right? Give Obama time for Christ sakes! Previously internet sales were not taxed either, see how that works? One change begets another! It's tha socialist way....
Just wait until the dems get yet again both House with Obama still as president. We will see changes forced upon us that are likely to force a civil war. And that quite likely is indeed Obama and his handlers plan..-Tyr

So since you were incorrect on the first it's because, "well not yet duh..."?

Do you know why they carved out an exception in the first place? That time has passed. Internet sales are taxed under certain circumstances and theoretically you owe use taxes on what you do purchase. But don't let anything get in the way of more conjecture. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Cogent reasons against imposing this forced collection:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/24/congress-is-considering-a-bill-to-make-internet-firms-collect-sales-tax-here-s-why-they-shouldn-t-pass-it.html


For one thing, it erodes the healthy tax competition between states and localities.
Tax competition? Specious at best. Right now we've skewed tax competition completely toward businesses who do not have to collect.

(And before those who want higher taxes cheer, take note: a 20 percent state sales tax would probably make it difficult for the federal government to impose a VAT.I'm OK with something right now that would preclude the Feds from being able to impose a VAT. Millions of potential angry voters that don't want a job-killing 20% tax on goods is a good thing.

Sales taxes are also regressive.Why should we be in favor of something that skews to MORE regressivity?


But the biggest concern may be the burden this puts on small business.If you do the business in a particular state you shouldn't be surprised if you have to deal with the costs involved.

Businesses in states without a sales tax will have to install a collection system that they currently don’t need—and to pay taxes for services that they don’t receive from faraway states.They're not paying taxes for services they don't they're acting as mere tax collector (as any business truly does) for the states in which they do business.


We want small businesses to get bigger, spread their wings, engage in interstate commerce.

Not at the expense of brick and mortar.

[Robert A Whit]

Fj1200 says I'm OK with something right now that would preclude the Feds from being able to impose a VAT. Millions of potential angry voters that don't want a job-killing 20% tax on goods is a good thing.

Were the internet tax put up for the public to vote up or down, I have no doubt we millions of angry voters would vote it down. Congress had better not figure out a new way to tax us. Obama promised no taxes for the less fortunate.

[Kathianne]

Tax competition? Specious at best. Right now we've skewed tax competition completely toward businesses who do not have to collect.I'm OK with something right now that would preclude the Feds from being able to impose a VAT. Millions of potential angry voters that don't want a job-killing 20% tax on goods is a good thing.
Why should we be in favor of something that skews to MORE regressivity?

If you do the business in a particular state you shouldn't be surprised if you have to deal with the costs involved.
They're not paying taxes for services they don't they're acting as mere tax collector (as any business truly does) for the states in which they do business.



Not at the expense of brick and mortar.

What makes 'brick and mortar' superior? Why can't they adapt? There are reasons that Amazon has been so quick to grow and it's not the tax breaks.

Best Buy, Circuit City, horrible service. Horrible shopping experiences. Circuit City is gone, Best Buy should be also. Same with Borders, they had a good thing going, but refused to hire folks that could actually service customers. Amazon? Looking for an out-of-print or a first edition? Email them. They'll find them or send you to someone who will. They will have the information near immediate.

When 'brick and mortar' stores realize they can specialize in servicing customers, instead of loading their stores with so much stuff that one cannot get around, they'll have a chance of surviving. Some restaurants are beginning to realize that people would rather have an enjoyable evening out, even if it costs a bit more. Saving money and coming home being stressed out? Not repeating, no matter how good the food or 'reasonable the costs.' If one wants 'low cost' they don't go out.

When I recently emailed Amazon explaining that I would like to switch to a cell phone in the near future, but I needed to find a phone that would work with my hearing problem. I explained I'd been to ATT, Verizon, and Sprint, all said, "They didn't know their loudest phone."

Amazon first replied that they would get the information they could from various manufacturers. A while later, got an email from a manager, "Would I be willing to try various phones, when I'm ready to get the cell? They will send me a different cell for as long as it takes, at no cost for phone or shipping or return. If a phone is 'ok,' I'll use it for a month, then return for next phone. If a phone is not acceptable, return it and call, they'll ship another out immediately. All they ask is that I write a review for each, from the perspective of someone with 75% bi-lateral hearing loss. He even offered to pay my phone bill for the cell."

That is not only service to me, the basis is being of service to others in similar circumstances. Try finding that at the 'phone centers,' those brick and mortar stores which are in the business of marketing their phones.

[fj1200]

What makes 'brick and mortar' superior?

I didn't say that they were superior, only that they shouldn't be behind the 8-ball.


Why can't they adapt?

That's what competition is for, not preferential treatment for the presently favored.

[Kathianne]

I didn't say that they were superior, only that they shouldn't be behind the 8-ball.



That's what competition is for, not preferential treatment for the presently favored.

Nonsense. Those same opportunities are there for those that adapt. It's been noted that both Walmart and Best Buy failed to do so regarding Amazon competition, Walmart is working on correcting.

Many new businesses today, set up a separate, related online business to their brick and mortar, availing themselves to both scenarios. That's innovative. Indeed, Amazon is working in reverse, attempting to set up satellite sites throughout the country. Thus perhaps making this very conversation moot.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So since you were incorrect on the first it's because, "well not yet duh..."?

Do you know why they carved out an exception in the first place? That time has passed. Internet sales are taxed under certain circumstances and theoretically you owe use taxes on what you do purchase. But don't let anything get in the way of more conjecture. :rolleyes:

So because I let you get away with limiting my state of sending --" the money" to sales tax and didn't bother to correct you now you declare I did a "well duh."
My comment about states sending in "the money" to big government then it being dribbled back stands on its own, Hoss.
My comment about the Federal government controlling the money is dead on .. And they use that as a hammer to increase their power so often in direct opposition to the Constitution.
I see now that I can not let you get by with even the slightest deviation made regarding my words without you crowing about some great victory. ;)

Such petty behavior may be a principle you hold dear but most decent people frown upon it amigo.--Tyr

[fj1200]

Nonsense. Those same opportunities are there for those that adapt. It's been noted that both Walmart and Best Buy failed to do so regarding Amazon competition, Walmart is working on correcting.

Nonsense? Differing tax treatment is nonsense? I disagree.


Many new businesses today, set up a separate, related online business to their brick and mortar, availing themselves to both scenarios. That's innovative. Indeed, Amazon is working in reverse, attempting to set up satellite sites throughout the country. Thus perhaps making this very conversation moot.

On-line businesses with a brick and mortar location are obliged to collect sales taxes. BB and CC would already be behind Amazon in that respect. Amazon, as I understand, is setting up shipping locations not showrooms; a difference no?

[fj1200]

So because I let you get away with limiting my state of sending --" the money" to sales tax and didn't bother to correct you now you declare I did a "well duh."
My comment about states sending in "the money" to big government then it being dribbled back stands on its own, Hoss.
My comment about the Federal government controlling the money is dead on .. And they use that as a hammer to increase their power so often in direct opposition to the Constitution.
I see now that I can not let you get by with even the slightest deviation made regarding my words without you crowing about some great victory. ;)

Such petty behavior may be a principle you hold dear but most decent people frown upon it amigo.--Tyr

WTF are you on about now? This thread is about sales taxes. Geez. Do you want to start a thread about Federal government idiocy and it's spending habits I'll be right there with you but for God's sake keep it on track.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

WTF are you on about now? This thread is about sales taxes. Geez. Do you want to start a thread about Federal government idiocy and it's spending habits I'll be right there with you but for God's sake keep it on track.

Just who the hell is wanting to impose the internet sales tax if it's not the Federal government?
So my discussion of the corruption , taxing powers and tactics of the Federal government is dead on topic!
I do not have to agree to limit my thoughts to some preconceived course you think better or desire be pursued.
You can shove that shat pedro.. It is not going to play with me.
My point was that the Feds are not all for this unless the money will be controlled by them. And you can bet your last dollar that is in their plan.
Stop being so damn gullible is my suggestion to you.-Tyr

[fj1200]

Just who the hell is wanting to impose the internet sales tax if it's not the Federal government?
So my discussion of the corruption , taxing powers and tactics of the Federal government is dead on topic!
I do not have to agree to limit my thoughts to some preconceived course you think better or desire be pursued.
You can shove that shat pedro.. It is not going to play with me.
My point was that the Feds are not all for this unless the money will be controlled by them. And you can bet your last dollar that is in their plan.
Stop being so damn gullible is my suggestion to you.-Tyr

Get over yourself. Not every thread must turn into anti-leftie, anti-muzzy, anti-BO, anti-Dem, Anti-anti-god, anti-you name it.

As I pointed out long ago. This only repeals a previous law that prevented STATES from imposing sales taxes on goods to the particular states. It is the Feds ALLOWING the states to impose already applicable STATE sales taxes. If you have some actual link to otherwise I will gladly concede the point.

[Kathianne]

Nonsense? Differing tax treatment is nonsense? I disagree.



On-line businesses with a brick and mortar location are obliged to collect sales taxes. BB and CC would already be behind Amazon in that respect. Amazon, as I understand, is setting up shipping locations not showrooms; a difference no?

My understanding is that if they have a physical presence and employees in a state, they'd be obligated to collect for that state. My understanding could easily be mistaken.

[cadet]

Next my pirate bay is gonna be taxed...

[Kathianne]

FJ, off topic but related to the adaptation discussion:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/3-retailers-rebuilt-last-173649575.html?vp=1

descriptions of 3 retailers that have turned around their downward trends: Home Depot, The Gap, Nordstroms. There are comparisons with Sears, Radio Shack, and JC Penny's. The losers are the whiners, while the success stories focused on themselves and their customers.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Get over yourself. Not every thread must turn into anti-leftie, anti-muzzy, anti-BO, anti-Dem, Anti-anti-god, anti-you name it.

As I pointed out long ago. This only repeals a previous law that prevented STATES from imposing sales taxes on goods to the particular states. It is the Feds ALLOWING the states to impose already applicable STATE sales taxes. If you have some actual link to otherwise I will gladly concede the point.

You may some day learn that your telling me how to post my opinion is going to be as effective as you beating down a granite wall while using only a peacock feather, Hoss.:laugh:

Perhaps you feel compelled to tell posters how they can respond but that is your error not mine. As long as I am breaking no forum rule I will ignore your suggestion. When/if it ever becomes a rule here that I must obey your dictates I'll happily leave for greener pastures. Until then suffer anyway you care to but thinking you can cause me to follow your dictates is foolish, laughable and just plain silly as hell amigo.

Now you care to cite what keeps the Feds's greedy paws off of a multi-billion dollar a month taxing law when they are all for it just post away. I know human nature and big governments past history and present nature. My " remark about being gullible" apparently does apply to you and your stand on this issue.

Disagree with me all you like but you do not get to tell me how I can reply.--Tyr

[fj1200]

My understanding is that if they have a physical presence and employees in a state, they'd be obligated to collect for that state. My understanding could easily be mistaken.

That's my understanding of the current scenario as well.


FJ, off topic but related to the adaptation discussion:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/3-retailers-rebuilt-last-173649575.html?vp=1

descriptions of 3 retailers that have turned around their downward trends: Home Depot, The Gap, Nordstroms. There are comparisons with Sears, Radio Shack, and JC Penny's. The losers are the whiners, while the success stories focused on themselves and their customers.

I saw the headline earlier but hadn't clicked on it. Nobody is saying that innovation isn't necessary.


Next my pirate bay is gonna be taxed...

I'd be more worried about the pirate police first. :poke:

[fj1200]

You may some day learn that your telling me how to post my opinion is going to be as effective as you beating down a granite wall while using only a peacock feather, Hoss.:laugh:

Perhaps you feel compelled to tell posters how they can respond but that is your error not mine. As long as I am breaking no forum rule I will ignore your suggestion. When/if it ever becomes a rule here that I must obey your dictates I'll happily leave for greener pastures. Until then suffer anyway you care to but thinking you can cause me to follow your dictates is foolish, laughable and just plain silly as hell amigo.

Now you care to cite what keeps the Feds's greedy paws off of a multi-billion dollar a month taxing law when they are all for it just post away. I know human nature and big governments past history and present nature. My " remark about being gullible" apparently does apply to you and your stand on this issue.

Disagree with me all you like but you do not get to tell me how I can reply.--Tyr

Dude, I really don't care how you post but when your blather is off topic don't be surprised when you hear about it. :slap:

[cadet]

I'd be more worried about the pirate police first. :poke:

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum! :laugh:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh-XVTuqKzg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Dude, I really don't care how you post but when your blather is off topic don't be surprised when you hear about it. :slap:

So you are now the off topic king here? What's that you say? No..
Then stop your blathering on about it, Hoss. Because it's boring the spectators..
Why issue dumbass suggestions then?
And why not cite your reasons for believing that the Feds will stay completely out of the money grabbing when they never have before?
Even more so true of the current spending maniacs we have..--Tyr

[Kathianne]

I saw the headline earlier but hadn't clicked on it. Nobody is saying that innovation isn't necessary.



...


What I am saying is the opportunities open to one, are open to all. Having more state taxes collected isn't going to help the competition. Indeed, in order to do so, one would have to argue that Amazon exists only because of state taxes not being included. That's unlikely.

[fj1200]

What I am saying is the opportunities open to one, are open to all. Having more state taxes collected isn't going to help the competition. Indeed, in order to do so, one would have to argue that Amazon exists only because of state taxes not being included. That's unlikely.

First, I'm not sure who is disagreeing with you on that, and second, it seems that was some of the basis for the exemption of sales taxes online in the first place.


The 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act ... in an effort to promote and preserve the commercial... potential of the Internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Freedom_Act

The time for promotion and preservation has ended unless Amazon still needs protection.

[fj1200]

So you are now the off topic king here? What's that you say? No..
Then stop your blathering on about it, Hoss. Because it's boring the spectators..
Why issue dumbass suggestions then?
And why not cite your reasons for believing that the Feds will stay completely out of the money grabbing when they never have before?
Even more so true of the current spending maniacs we have..--Tyr

You were wrong on page 1, you're wrong on page 3. The legislation that is ACTUALLY the subject of the thread is about the taxing power of the States. You would like the Feds to stay out of their business right?

I have no faith that the Feds will stay out of the money grabbing game but that's what eternal vigilance is about. IMO conservatives should remain consistent about their views and not just oppose things because of what BO may do at the behest of his money-grubbing, muzzy overlords. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I have no faith that the Feds will stay out of the money grabbing game but that's what eternal vigilance is about. IMO conservatives should remain consistent about their views and not just oppose things because of what BO may do at the behest of his money-grubbing, muzzy overlords. :rolleyes:

And that was my premise when I spoke directly about the Feds.

Good to see that you finally got it and manned up to agree with me.;)

[fj1200]

And that was my premise when I spoke directly about the Feds.

Good to see that you finally got it and manned up to agree with me.;)

If that makes you feel better.