stevenaa Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I get having state taxes apply so that companies w/o don't continue to take sales away and tax from the state.However, this proposal still irks me because it has Republican support, which has been averse to any kind of taxation that would affect anyone other than the middle and lower class. They keep piling it on us, despite the widening disparity and the shrinking spending class, yet do everything they can to prevent taxing upper income brackets which would have a larger benefit and come from people who can afford it. whoever said it earlier is right, most of the right is completely in the pockets of big business. let's tax the middle class more, but filibuster bills which tax the 1% in a time where solutions are needed right away. How anyone can vote for those scumbags right now is beyond me So explain to me why taxes weren't increased to a proper amount for corporations and the rich when the Dems had control? It's a weak argument to constantly blame either side when both sides are so completely and obviously complicit. The only difference between the two is the framing of their rhetoric. We need to put our blinders on to what side proposes what and evaluate the merit of the proposal on it's own. ---------- Post added November-4th-2011 at 12:39 PM ---------- And if this didn't come across as a pure and simple money grab then I might be better with it, but the Right cannot scream about not raising taxes for the "job creators" and then in the next breath try to pass legislation that would raise taxes on the purchasing class. When the people of this country look at what is actually being done, we may have hope for change. As so many are, you are too entrenched in an us against them mentality. You're too concerned with which side proposed and not the merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 So explain to me why taxes weren't increased to a proper amount for corporations and the rich when the Dems had control? It's a weak argument to constantly blame either side when both sides are so completely and obviously complicit. The only difference between the two is the framing of their rhetoric. We need to put our blinders on to what side proposes what and evaluate the merit of the proposal on it's own. From my POV the GOP is definitely worse, if the GOP was better the Dems wouldn't get away w/ being rat ****s so easily. I mean there are real differences, every single one of the nominees for the Right wants to lower progressive taxes and increase regressive taxes. That's no bueno. As far as I know, Obama wants to increase progressive taxes and hold regressive taxes steady. They Dems know that because the GOP is so far to the right that I, and people like me, aren't going to vote for the GOP, so they basically just have to suck less. And sucking less is a VERY LOW bar these days. They have one thing in common w/ the GOP though. At the end of the day, the want to win elections. Period. just my take on that legitimate question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 So explain to me why taxes weren't increased to a proper amount for corporations and the rich when the Dems had control? It's a weak argument to constantly blame either side when both sides are so completely and obviously complicit. The only difference between the two is the framing of their rhetoric. We need to put our blinders on to what side proposes what and evaluate the merit of the proposal on it's own. Give me a minute while I look back through this thread and find the place where I said the Dems tried to do better....hold on..this may take awhile....... BTW which party is it that screams every time the discussion moves to raising taxes on businesses and the rich....and then look to see which party is pushing a bill that would raise taxes on the purchasing class....then get back to me about which party is winning the hypocrisy game right now....oh I'll grant that the score is pretty darn close but in the discussion of fairness of taxation there is a definite front runner. When the people of this country look at what is actually being done, we may have hope for change. As so many are, you are too entrenched in an us against them mentality. You're too concerned with which side proposed and not the merit. We AREN'T the ones who say that we're class warriors, we aren't the one's who say that we're lazy greedy and envious of the rich...and you want to say that we are the one's entrenched in an us vs them mentality. How does one even come to the table when the other side looks at you they way the Right does the rest of the world and think for a moment that a fair deal can be reached?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 They aren't violating that state's law, the sale was not made in that state, unless you're going to claim that a web presence in a state means that the state can tax an entity. Funny, others have already pointed out otherwise. The taxes already exist. This would just give the states the ability to enforce them. Technically, everybody with a state sales tax should be paying for internet purchases now, it's just that various Court decisions have made it impossible for states to collect if a business takes steps to avoid it.It's a little disingenous to call this a new or raised tax. walmart.com collects sales tax when I order something, and amazon.com doesn't. Both sales ship from out of state. There's absolutely nothing magical about a cardboard box crossing a state line, that renders that box immune to all state laws. The reason walmart.com collects sales tax in Florida is because, if they don't, the state will show up at one of their stores with a court order, seize the store and everything in it, and announce that it will all be auctioned off, next Tuesday, to pay past due taxes. The reason amazon doesn't collect taxes in Florida (and, I'll point out, I don't know for sure that they don't. I'm simply using their name as an icon, to represent "internet business that doesn't have a physical presence in Florida".) because Florida can go to court if they want, they can get a court order if they want, but amazon doesn't have any assets in Florida for the sheriff to seize and auction. The factor that determines whether the merchant collects taxes isn't whether the cardboard box crosses state lines or not. It's whether the merchant has any assets anywhere where the state can get at them. ---------- Analogy. At least, back in the days (I don't know if it's true, now days), one of the standard things you'd see in TV shows, movies, and commercials, was the kid who gets pulled over for speeding in BFE, Alabama, and gets thrown in the local jail for speeding. Well, there was a reason for it. In the old days, if a Florida driver got pulled over in Florida, and the cop gave him a ticket, and the driver didn't pay it, then Florida could issue a warrant for the driver's arrest. Or, what was a lot more common, they'd simply refuse to renew his driver's license until he paid the ticket, and all of the late fees and penalties. Often, nearby states would work out "reciprocity agreements". Where, say, Florida and Georgia would agree that if a driver got a ticket in one state, and didn't pay it, then the other state would refuse to renew his license. But, if the states weren't nearby, then often no such agreement got worked out. For decades, the way things worked out, if a driver from New York got a ticket in Alabama (or pretty much any other state), and if the cop handed the driver a ticket, then the driver could simply get in his car, drive back to New York, and ignore the ticket. Alabama didn't have the power to suspend his New York driver's license. He broke the law, but they couldn't touch him. (As long as he stayed in his state.) The result was that a lot of places, down south, had policies. If a driver gets a traffic ticket, and he's from some state that doesn't have reciprocity, then they'd haul the driver to jail, and keep him there, until he paid his fine. Not because Sheriff Buford T. Justice got a kick out of putting speeders in his jail. But because if he allows the (accused) speeder to leave town, then the driver becomes immune to his power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I can also have my Walmart.com purchases sent to a Walmart store for pickup. I can't do that for my Amazon purchases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I don't know Alsbury. I'm trying to be better about framing my opinions and views based on what I feel is right. Letting my view be skewed because of the way another idealogue views me is not productive. I don't give a rats behind about what someone of a differing view feels or says about me. I'm going to form my opinions and thoughts based on facts, and the beliefs I hold as core values. Constantly demonizing the "opposition" serves no value, no matter how justified you feel. It is counter productve. Either the sales tax for all is fair or it isn't on it's own merit. It has nothing to do with who proposed it. Call out the hypocrisy as such if that's your view. But don't dismiss the idea based solely on which side puts it out there. Geting past the partisan hackery needs to start somehwere. If it doesn't start with the people, it sure isn't going to start with the politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 So explain to me why taxes weren't increased to a proper amount for corporations and the rich when the Dems had control? It's a weak argument to constantly blame either side when both sides are so completely and obviously complicit. The only difference between the two is the framing of their rhetoric. We need to put our blinders on to what side proposes what and evaluate the merit of the proposal on it's own.---------- Post added November-4th-2011 at 12:39 PM ---------- When the people of this country look at what is actually being done, we may have hope for change. As so many are, you are too entrenched in an us against them mentality. You're too concerned with which side proposed and not the merit. First off, the Dems were handed a giant cluster **** where they really couldn't allow so many big businesses to fail in a down economy. A couple you can let fail, but not a significant portion of the housing and auto industries, for example. Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems I'm one of the few who actually remembers Republicans filibustering every piece of legislation the Dems brought forth, during a time of economic crisis, instead of coming up with their own solutions and/or trying to work with the other side on legislation. At least the Dems tried and have been trying. Explain to me why righters give Republicans a pass for creating the mess and then doing nothing to fix it, and instead have only delayed chances of progress, and why you continue to support that party when their actions don't support most of their backers, and they've done everything they can to ensure the top isn't taxed at a rate equal to their actual income while screwing over the middle class, which actually comprises most of their constituency. But hey, as long as they sandhct guns and hate gays, the party is good enough for some. I'm not happy with Dems either, but the Republicans have been cancerous to America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 The factor that determines whether the merchant collects taxes isn't whether the cardboard box crosses state lines or not. It's whether the merchant has any assets anywhere where the state can get at them. From Amazon's Help page... "Items sold by Amazon.com LLC, or its subsidiaries, and shipped to destinations in the states of Kansas, Kentucky, New York, North Dakota, or Washington are subject to tax." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Constantly demonizing the "opposition" serves no value,. Then how do you explain the question you posed to me, which blamed Dems as a response to me stating that I'm irked by the right being so against upper income taxes but have no problem taxing middle class despite the widening income disparity? You played the blame game and switched it to the other party instead of addressing what I said about the Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 i remember last year in North Carolina and possibly California, the gov'ts were trying to pass a law that would allow the respective gov'ts go through the history of your Amazon purchases for at least the last year and charge you sales tax. I know in NC it didn't make it, but it was taken more seriously then I would've liked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 From Amazon's Help page..."Items sold by Amazon.com LLC, or its subsidiaries, and shipped to destinations in the states of Kansas, Kentucky, New York, North Dakota, or Washington are subject to tax." And therefore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Explain to me why righters give Republicans a pass for creating the mess and then doing nothing to fix it, and instead have only delayed chances of progress, and why you continue to support that party when their actions don't support most of their backers, and they've done everything they can to ensure the top isn't taxed at a rate equal to their actual income while screwing over the middle class, which actually comprises most of their constituency. But hey, as long as they sandhct guns and hate gays, the party is good enough for some. I'm not happy with Dems either, but the Republicans have been cancerous to America. Let's not get too derailed. I raised the point of Dems not doing anything either to point out their complicity, not defend the right. I've done nothing of the sort. I don't disagree with your assesment. The right has sucked also and I don't think either side can lay claim to more or less suckage than the other. Then how do you explain the question you posed to me, which blamed Dems as a response to me stating that I'm irked by the right being so against upper income taxes but have no problem taxing middle class despite the widening income disparity? You played the blame game and switched it to the other party instead of addressing what I said about the Republicans. I wasn't trying to blame the Dems. I don't believe they are any more or less responsible than the Rebubs. We have a political engine fueled by boths sides. I've come to the conclusion that both sides get equal billing in successes and failures. We can't have either without participation of both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 And therefore? Reinforcing your point. They collect taxes where they have a significant presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Let's not get too derailed. I raised the point of Dems not doing anything either to point out their complicity, not defend the right. I've done nothing of the sort. I don't disagree with your assesment. The right has sucked also and I don't think either side can lay claim to more or less suckage than the other. You pointed it out eventhough I never suggested the Dems weren't complicit. If they had had the resolve they could have pushed through the delays and posturing. But you absolutely deflected by trying to shift blame instead of actually talking about my concern with the right. I agree with this proposal out of simple fairness, but at the same time it is hypocritical of the right to support fairness here while being so against fairness being applied to the top class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Reinforcing your point. They collect taxes where they have are require to do so. They don't make sales in other states, they make sales in their own states where they are located and where they pay taxes. The logic being used here would be to say that since I use skype to talk with my father in New Hampshire then I am in New Hampshire....that dun werk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 You pointed it out eventhough I never suggested the Dems weren't complicit. If they had had the resolve they could have pushed through the delays and posturing. But you absolutely deflected by trying to shift blame instead of actually talking about my concern with the right. I agree with this proposal out of simple fairness, but at the same time it is hypocritical of the right to support fairness here while being so against fairness being applied to the top class. Did you even read my whole reply. I'll post it again since clearly you couldn't have our you could not have come to the conclusion I was defending the Rebubs when I very clearly lumped both sides into the same pond of failure. You're statement about it being a republican proposal implied that the repubs are solely to blame. So explain to me why taxes weren't increased to a proper amount for corporations and the rich when the Dems had control? It's a weak argument to constantly blame either side when both sides are so completely and obviously complicit. The only difference between the two is the framing of their rhetoric. We need to put our blinders on to what side proposes what and evaluate the merit of the proposal on it's own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 They don't make sales in other states, they make sales in their own states where they are located and where they pay taxes. The logic being used here would be to say that since I use skype to talk with my father in New Hampshire then I am in New Hampshire....that dun werk. If you only downloaded electronically, I might agree. But presumably someone has to fund the building and maintenance of the roads that your physical item travels on to your house. Someone has to employ a police force so that the delivery van doesn't get hijacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Did you even read my whole reply. I'll post it again since clearly you couldn't have our you could not have come to the conclusion I was defending the Rebubs when I very clearly lumped both sides into the same pond of failure. You're statement about it being a republican proposal implied that the repubs are solely to blame. I didn't say you were defending the right, I said you were deflecting. I raised the point that while I agree with the proposal, I'm irked at the right getting behind this but being so averse to any extra taxes on the top. You responded by asking me why the Dems didn't do anything w/ majority control. I was talking about the right, and you deflected, clear as day. But I answered your question citing Republican filibuster tactics and political posturing, instead of them actually cooperating during a crisis, but also put blame on the Dems for not maintaining solidarity and focus and fighting through it. My answer shows I read your whole reply, and you're just arguing in circles now rather than admit that talking about what the Dems did or didn't do, as a response to my concern with Republicans taxing middle class more despite widening disparity while also being against ANY kind of tax raise for the top, was deflecting. You then blasted me for only blaming one side, despite the fact I never said that the left didn't have blame as well. The left at least has tried to tax the top as well, so I don't have issue with their involvement on internet sales tax. Perhaps if you weren't caught up in people blaming sides you would have better understood my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Sounds like socialism to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 If you only downloaded electronically, I might agree. But presumably someone has to fund the building and maintenance of the roads that your physical item travels on to your house. Someone has to employ a police force so that the delivery van doesn't get hijacked. All you've done is make an argument for some form of taxation, and based on this argument you could push legislation that would tax gifts from out of state that are shipped during Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 They don't make sales in other states, they make sales in their own states where they are located and where they pay taxes. You keep trying to make that claim. People keep pointing out that it isn't true. Your response is to simply make the claim again. If I'm in Kansas. I purchase something from Amazon. It ships from New York. They collect Kansas taxes because . . . I've told you why they collect Kansas taxes. It's because if they don't, the Kansas government will seize their assets. If they sell something to Florida, however, they don't. It's not because the cardboard box crossed a state line. Both boxes did. It's because Kansas can make them pay, and Florida can't. ---------- Long story, only tangentially on-topic. Y'all have my permission to skip. When I lived in Oklahoma, there was a federal court case that got a lot of attention. Seems that the State of Oklahoma had a problem, because Indian tribes were selling cigarettes that didn't have Oklahoma state taxes on them. They wanted the federal court fo make the Indians charge Oklahoma taxes. The court ruled that the State of Oklahoma has the right to make the tribes collect taxes. However, the court also ruled, that since the Indian tribes, by Treaty, have some of the status of sovereign nations, that, if the tribes did not comply with Oklahoma law, that the state couldn't do anything about it. That the state had the authority and the jurisdiction to pass the law. But that they couldn't enforce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I think a tax on Republican Senators is a better idea. And how about Democratic Gov. O'Malley of Maryland? He's calling for this too. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-07-10/business/bs-bz-han****-internet-sales-tax-20110710_1_sales-tax-internet-tax-tax-disparity This isnt a left/right issue. No matter who wants to say it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Perhaps if you weren't caught up in people blaming sides you would have better understood my point. Apologies. I reread your quote again for the third time, and I misread your opening statement twice. No excuses. Perfection alludes me once again. You did exactly what I requested of Alsbury. Base your opinion of the proposal based on the merits, and call out what you see as hypocrisy without dismissing the idea. Thus my following rebutals made no sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Fergy is right. If the Dems proposed this.. the Repubs would be screaming to high hell about Dems always trying to raise our taxes. The fact that they have pledged never to raise taxes... yet find avenues like this are telling. Just like analyzing what happens to the tax rates of the super wealthy versus the middle and lower class during Herman Cain's 9-9-9 is very telling. Wolves in sheep's clothing and they expect that conservatives are all sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Thought this was interesting: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/han****/blog/2011/11/state_loses_200_million_in_sal.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.