elkabong82 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 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. It's alright. I've made the same mistake myself on here, it happens. At least we didn't waste a bunch of pages or get nasty with each other. And I should have explained myself better the first time, like I did this most recent post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa 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. And the Repubs would be stupid for it. All politicians are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 This is not a liberal/conservative issue. Sales taxes vs. other less-regressive forms of taxation is definitely a liberal/conservative issue. This issue is about consistency within the tax system that we already employ, and about equal treatment for all retailers. If we ARE going to pay sales tax on microwave ovens, the tax should be paid whenever a microwave oven is purchased, no matter which retailer sells it to you. Anything else is 1) grossly unfair (liberals should get behind that) and 2) creates market distortions (conservatives should get behind that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry 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. Well, in the GOP's defense, no, I don't think this is about raising taxes on the poor. If this dispute was between Amazon and Mom and Pop's Bookstore, the GOP would be 100% on Amazon's side. IMO, the reason you have some Republicans doing this isn't because it will squeeze money out of Joe Sizpack. It's because it's a dispute between Amazon.com and Walmart.com. You've got big businesses on both sides of the debate. Edit: And, on an even more cynical viewpoint: By introducing the legislation, they guarantee that both Wal Mart and Amazon will send big piles of money to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 It's alright. I've made the same mistake myself on here, it happens. At least we didn't waste a bunch of pages or get nasty with each other. And I should have explained myself better the first time, like I did this most recent post. I wanted to call you a super uber liberal Dem supporting, commie pinko socialist, but thought it might be a bit too confrontational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 And the Repubs would be stupid for it. All politicians are the same. Can't really argue much with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 This is not a liberal/conservative issue. Sales taxes vs. other less-regressive forms of taxation is definitely a liberal/conservative issue.This issue is about consistency within the tax system that we already employ, and about equal treatment for all retailers. If we ARE going to pay sales tax on microwave ovens, the tax should be paid whenever a microwave oven is purchased, no matter which retailer sells it to you. Anything else is 1) grossly unfair (liberals should get behind that) and 2) creates market distortions (conservatives should get behind that). If only people would read that and understand it. Sigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 It's because it's a dispute between Amazon.com and Walmart.com. Well I'm certainly releived to see that there aren't special interests pushing this. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 One day, I'm going to be Senator. And everyone will say "there's one honest politician". I can dream... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 One day, I'm going to be Senator. And everyone will say "there's one honest politician". I can dream... I think I would want a sincere one even more than an honest one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Update: Internet Sales Tax Bill Gains Ground in Senate WASHINGTON — It has been labeled a tax grab and a bureaucratic nightmare by conservative antitax activists, an infringement on states’ rights and a federal encroachment on the almost-sacred ground of Internet commerce. Yet legislation to help states force online retailers to collect sales taxes easily cleared its first procedural hurdle on Monday evening, and even its fiercest opponents are looking to the House for a last stand. The Senate voted 74-20 to take up the legislation for debate and amendment. “I’m not above believing in miracles,” said Dan Holler, a spokesman for Heritage Action, the activist arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has made opposition to the Internet tax bill a “key vote” — so far with little impact. The bill, known as the Marketplace Fairness Act, is that rare piece of legislation that has turned Democrat against Democrat, Republican against Republican and business against business, while uniting states as different as New Hampshire, Montana and Oregon — which have no sales taxes — against virtually every other state. An odd confluence of events has swung the political momentum to one side. Less than a week after the Senate could not muster 60 votes to expand gun background checks supported by a vast majority of voters, lawmakers from both parties are poised to steamroll opponents and greatly broaden the imposition of sales taxes on the Internet. Under the bill, online retailers would collect an estimated $22 billion to $24 billion that now goes uncollected. A final vote is expected in the Senate by the end of the week. When the House will take up the issue is uncertain. Click on the link for the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Wow. Somebody else saw this story, and put it in the right thread, too. (My bad.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 The reason bootleggers were pursued by the authorities was in order to tax the liquor, the gov't only comes after you when they aren't getting money from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 About time they did this. Brick and mortar retailers have been discriminated against for too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 About time they did this. Brick and mortar retailers have been discriminated against for too long. yep I could see it in internet infancy,but we are way past that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 yepI could see it in internet infancy,but we are way past that It was kind of dumb back then too, but it's really, really dumb now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 I don't see this as a liberal vs conservative issue either. If sales tax applies, it applies to everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 I don't see this as a liberal vs conservative issue either. If sales tax applies' date=' it applies to everything.[/quote']Except that a lot of conservative anti-tax advocates are speaking out against it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncr2h Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Big problem with the discussion on this issue - It's not an internet sales tax. It's an internet use tax. Why is this a big problem? Because proponents of this bill are acting like all they are doing is advocating that everybody follow the same rules. But they're not. What they are advocating is that internet companies be burdened with collecting both use taxes and sales taxes, while brick and mortar companies are only required to collect sales taxes. Suppose I lived in Maryland and I bought something from Best Buy in Virginia. I would be charged a sales tax. I would not be charged a use tax, even though I owe a use tax on the difference between the Virginia sales tax and the Maryland sales tax. Best Buy in Maryland erroneously assumes that my use tax is 0, and it is left up to me to self-report this on my Virginia income tax return. And everybody is completely fine with that. ...unless you are an internet retailer from out-of-state. You see, if I lived in Virginia and bought a product online from a Company in Maryland, I would pay $0 in sales tax and, again, it would be up to me to self-report the use tax on my Virginia tax return. However, under this new legislation, the online retailer in Maryland would be required to collect the use tax on my behalf. Meanwhile, the brick & mortar retailer in Maryland does not have to do that. In no way is this a leveling of the playing field. It's a cash grab by your state government, with brick & mortar businesses playing the role of the useful idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 The reason bootleggers were pursued by the authorities was in order to tax the liquor, the gov't only comes after you when they aren't getting money from you. OT, but I remember reading a story, a few years ago. Seems that the legal brothels in Nevada went to the state, and were asking the state to tax them. Apparently the state legislature in Nevada is Republican, and they keep trying to get rid of legal prostitution. But, supposedly, every time they try, the people on the prostitution-legal counties vote like 90% against making it illegal. The brothels figured that, if the state ever started taxing them, then once they started collecting the taxes, they would never again try to make them illegal. ---------- Post added April-23rd-2013 at 02:27 PM ---------- Big problem with the discussion on this issue -It's not an internet sales tax. It's an internet use tax. Tell you what. How about you explain what this term "use tax" is and how it differs from a sales tax. Then could you explain where you're pulling this claim, that, if this law passes, then say, the San Francisco retailer who I purchased something from, online, a few days back, will have to go from collecting neither of what you claim are two taxes, to collecting both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 About time they did this. Brick and mortar retailers have been discriminated against for too long. Brick and mortar stores can sell their wares online across state lines too, ergo no discrimination. The thought of a Federal sales tax makes me ill. ---------- Post added April-23rd-2013 at 04:51 PM ---------- The brothels figured that, if the state ever started taxing them, then once they started collecting the taxes, they would never again try to make them illegal. Want to see how pot was legalized in the center of Conservative Protestant Christian Colorado? Follow the tax law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtdrums Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Brick and mortar stores can sell their wares online across state lines too, ergo no discrimination. The thought of a Federal sales tax makes me ill. ASF, you hit the nail on the head. I am a one-man company with 100% internet sales. I cannot afford the cost increase to my customers or the time that will be required for compliance. This tax will hurt me, plain and simple, and make my American dream -- a very realistic, attainable dream I was well on the way to achieving -- more difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sikbug Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Edit: I just noticed how old this thread is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 ASF, you hit the nail on the head.I am a one-man company with 100% internet sales. I cannot afford the cost increase to my customers or the time that will be required for compliance. This tax will hurt me, plain and simple, and make my American dream -- a very realistic, attainable dream I was well on the way to achieving -- more difficult. It is all about generating more revenue, nothing about discrimination. The Walmarts are pushing this because they have a presence in every state therefore they have to pay state sales tax, and they don't want anyone taking advantage of areas where they cannot benefit. Corporation drive legislation now, government for the "people" my butt. All hail the corporate over lords! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 this will effect me more than most people, but I still think it's a great idea ASF, you hit the nail on the head.I am a one-man company with 100% internet sales. I cannot afford the cost increase to my customers or the time that will be required for compliance. This tax will hurt me, plain and simple, and make my American dream -- a very realistic, attainable dream I was well on the way to achieving -- more difficult. unless your sales are over a million then you will be exempt, there is software out there ready to be used which will dramatically reduce compliance efforts. it's not that bad, and it's fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.