If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Big Story) NewsFlash US Senate passes Internet Sales Tax Bill. Why? Because fark you, that's why   (bigstory.ap.org) divider line 573
    More: NewsFlash, Senate, internet, senate passes, sales taxes, D-Ill, United States  
•       •       •

16647 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 May 2013 at 10:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

573 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-07 12:04:32 PM  
You can't just sell the Internet, it's not like a big truck...
 
2013-05-07 12:05:47 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: [i0.kym-cdn.com image 483x352]

The purpose of the tax break was to encourage Internet sales. Internet retailers are doing well, so we end the tax break. We now move on with life.

People get some advantage and then whine like spoiled brats when they no longer get special treatment.

If anyone is asking why Amazon is supporting this, it's because they have distribution centers in many states. They also had problems in the past with affiliate programs and taxes. They want a level playing field with other internet retailers.


It's easy to understand how the public wouldn't have all the facts about this bill, it was introduced and voted on in a matter of days without adequate debate and before anyone had time to learn what's it's really all about.  Calling it a tax break makes it sound like there was a sales tax before but it was delayed for a while; this is a new tax.  If you look at the corporate supporters and opponents of this bill it becomes obvious the bill isn't about leveling the playing field but about stacking the deck.  Small businesses can't afford to manage the sales tax which eliminates them from selling things online and competing with gigantic corporations like Amazon, iTunes or Google.  It's not a tax on businesses that make billions, it's a tax on regular people like you and me.  As Senator Ron Wyden (D) says...

The Online Sales Tax:

1. violates state sovereignty by forcing one state to enforce the laws of other states
2. is discriminatory. Internet businesses are required to get information on where products will be used - brick & mortar stores aren't
3. is coercive and burdensome. Internet businesses would be forced to collect taxes for over 9000 tax jurisdictions
4. undermines successful small businesses - requiring them to spend time and money playing tax-collector instead of growing
5. threatens Internet freedom by forcing e-businesses to enforce laws from jurisdictions where they aren't located
 
2013-05-07 12:11:24 PM  

whidbey: Majick Thise: My problem isn't so much with the tax, which should have been paid anyway (heathens). My problem is that Now that the gov't has started messing with the internet they won't stop.

What makes you think the Internet isn't subject to regulation?


It isn't subject to very much content regulation right now. My ISP can't block the websites of their competition. I am not charged differently for some sites than others (internet long distance charges). Porn tax anyone? Most of us would be bankrupt in a week if there was a porn tax.

Do you think the gov't wouldn't jump at the chance top part more of us from our money? Once the precedent is set they will try to tax anything they can online. I'm sorry that would be a porn access fee/long distance access fee... tax is not a word they like to use.
 
2013-05-07 12:21:55 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Stuff costs money. Get over it, teabaggers.


Ever consider the government might have enough "stuff"?
Ever think the people who earn a living might like some "stuff" for themselves?
 
2013-05-07 12:31:12 PM  

DeathCipris: IronTom: DeathCipris: This would be a tax nightmare. All the states are slightly different in taxation, have different tax rates, not to mention localities have differences too. This ridiculous on the face of it.

You don't hire 10's of thousands of IRS agents and not use them!

I know you are being tongue-in-cheek, but the onus isn't on the IRS. It is the businesses that must bear the burden of some new goofy tax scheme and being in compliance with different localities. In the end, it will be the consumer that gets screwed.


I agree with you whole-heartedly, DeathCipris. It already feels like we are getting screwed, look at the grocery prices. It seems that some inflation has been going on.
 
2013-05-07 12:33:04 PM  

DeathCipris: IronTom: DeathCipris: This would be a tax nightmare. All the states are slightly different in taxation, have different tax rates, not to mention localities have differences too. This ridiculous on the face of it.

You don't hire 10's of thousands of IRS agents and not use them!

I know you are being tongue-in-cheek, but the onus isn't on the IRS. It is the businesses that must bear the burden of some new goofy tax scheme and being in compliance with different localities. In the end, it will be the consumer that gets screwed.


It is sort of like that cockamamie law they tried to get passed where every sale of anything from anyone to anyone over $200 or $600 or something had to be reported to the gvmt.
 
2013-05-07 12:34:33 PM  

dbrunker: The Online Sales Tax:

1. violates state sovereignty by forcing one state to enforce the laws of other states The law already exists and as a consumer of goods over the internet, you should have been keeping track of, and paying this tax already; this just shifts the burden from the consumer to the merchant
2. is discriminatory. Internet businesses are required to get information on where products will be used - brick & mortar stores aren't Where the product(s) will be used are irrelevant and have no bearing on this law.  Only where they are purchased from matters, and you bet your ass brick & mortar stores have to keep track of that (for businesses with brick & mortar stores in multiple cities or states)
3.  is coercive and burdensome. Internet businesses would be forced to collect taxes for over 9000 tax jurisdictions Using software that will be provided free of charge
4. undermines successful small businesses - requiring them to spend time and money playing tax-collector instead of growing Again, they get free software for this.  It's just additional administrative that can be mostly automated, ffs
5. threatens Internet freedom by forcing e-businesses to enforce laws from jurisdictions where they aren't located Now you're just being (more) stupid

 
2013-05-07 12:42:53 PM  

Majick Thise: whidbey: Majick Thise: My problem isn't so much with the tax, which should have been paid anyway (heathens). My problem is that Now that the gov't has started messing with the internet they won't stop.

What makes you think the Internet isn't subject to regulation?

It isn't subject to very much content regulation right now. My ISP can't block the websites of their competition. I am not charged differently for some sites than others (internet long distance charges). Porn tax anyone? Most of us would be bankrupt in a week if there was a porn tax.

Do you think the gov't wouldn't jump at the chance top part more of us from our money? Once the precedent is set they will try to tax anything they can online. I'm sorry that would be a porn access fee/long distance access fee... tax is not a word they like to use.


I'm not much of a fan of regressive taxation, but you really seem to hate ANY taxes.

Which is unrealistic, frankly, given our revenue shortfalls.
 
2013-05-07 12:49:59 PM  

dbrunker: The Irresponsible Captain: [i0.kym-cdn.com image 483x352]

The purpose of the tax break was to encourage Internet sales. Internet retailers are doing well, so we end the tax break. We now move on with life.

People get some advantage and then whine like spoiled brats when they no longer get special treatment.

If anyone is asking why Amazon is supporting this, it's because they have distribution centers in many states. They also had problems in the past with affiliate programs and taxes. They want a level playing field with other internet retailers.

It's easy to understand how the public wouldn't have all the facts about this bill, it was introduced and voted on in a matter of days without adequate debate and before anyone had time to learn what's it's really all about.  Calling it a tax break makes it sound like there was a sales tax before but it was delayed for a while; this is a new tax.  If you look at the corporate supporters and opponents of this bill it becomes obvious the bill isn't about leveling the playing field but about stacking the deck.  Small businesses can't afford to manage the sales tax which eliminates them from selling things online and competing with gigantic corporations like Amazon, iTunes or Google.  It's not a tax on businesses that make billions, it's a tax on regular people like you and me.  As Senator Ron Wyden (D) says...

The Online Sales Tax:

1. violates state sovereignty by forcing one state to enforce the laws of other states
2. is discriminatory. Internet businesses are required to get information on where products will be used - brick & mortar stores aren't
3. is coercive and burdensome. Internet businesses would be forced to collect taxes for over 9000 tax jurisdictions
4. undermines successful small businesses - requiring them to spend time and money playing tax-collector instead of growing
5. threatens Internet freedom by forcing e-businesses to enforce laws from jurisdictions where they aren't located


I don't see how this is sudden. They've been debating this tax for years; it's been in the news for years. There's been lots of public debate and comment on it.

For instance, this wikipedia article has:
Amazon says it would support a federal solution to the sales tax problem as long as such legislation was fair and simple. As of May 2011 legislation has been introduced in Congress to allow states to impose sales taxes on sales to their residents from out-of-state. Amazon has not stated a public position on the bill. Amazon's competitors say it is insincere. Similar legislation, called the  Main Street Fairness Act, failed in committee in 2010. Several earlier versions of the bill also failed to advance. Amazon lobbyists met four times with members of Congress or their aides in 2010 regarding the Main Street Fairness Act. The company spent $610,000 on lobbying in 2010, although these expenses also covered other bills discussed at the same time. Amazon has increased political contributions to federal lawmakers.

Or, look at this 2008 NY Times article.

Or look up the Streamlined Sales Tax Project that was founded in 2000.

If you haven't been paying attention to this for the last decade or so, then I'm sorry. It wasn't in a bathroom with a sign on the door saying "Beware of Leopard".
 
2013-05-07 01:21:02 PM  

whidbey: i'm not much of a fan of regressive taxation, but you really seem to hate ANY taxes.

Which is unrealistic, frankly, given our revenue shortfalls.


Funny that I am as far from a tea bagger as one can be and you accuse me of hating all taxes. Their hasn't been a congress controlled by either party that has had ANY fiscal responsibility at all since Nixon took us off the gold standard. I don't hate taxes per se... I like roads and other infrastructure, national defense and national parks. I like the protection of law.... or at least I did. It seems this congress and many before it have decided that the protection of law only applies to whoever lobbies them with the most money. They also seem to feel that they are protected from the law. As for the rest of us they seem, by their actions, to feel that the law is there to control the masses and of course, to part the masses from any money they might have. They are spend happy fools, they and their predecessors have dug this hole. If our country and its citizens weren't being drug down as well I would say they dug the hole and we should let them bury themselves in it.

Yeah I REALLY have a bad opinion of congress
 
2013-05-07 01:22:19 PM  

pedrop357: Vlad_the_Inaner: pedrop357: What services has my state provided to justify these taxes?

They didn't service any stores, build anything around them, didn't license, inspect, etc. any retail outlets.

The delivery vehicles used paid fuel and other road taxes, warehouse operators paid property taxes, etc.

Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.

And the states don't run any courts to sue anyone's butt in when there is a sales contract issue too?

Courts don't work for free.  There are all sorts of fees to sue, respond, etc.

Also, warehouse owners get those services without paying/collecting sales taxes.


Courts have fees.  So you think it's ok not to pay to maintain their existence until you need them.  The judge's salary is on a fee basis,huh?  Everyone else's saleray too? Let me guess. You feel the same way about the fire department.  The court was just one example.   Maintaining a civil society in the region the warehouse wants to operate entails a cost.   See many mail order companies working out of Somalia?

And if you know warehouses that doesn't pay taxes when they purchase the local supplies they need to run, please tell me so I can rat them out for a finder's fee on those tax cheats.  (And if you do a retail order from the state that the warehouse resides in, they will indeed collect your sales tax during the purchase)

For that matter, they get building inspections, etc, too, even if they are not a retail outlet  Or maybe you're one of those guys who thinks it's OK to warehouse a 1000 tons of ammonium nitrate without oversight.
 
2013-05-07 01:24:25 PM  

whidbey: I'm not much of a fan of regressive taxation, but you really seem to hate ANY taxes.


I may be jaded since I come from Chicago, but I thoroughly believe at least 50% of my hard earned tax money is being stolen, never to build a road, a park, pay a teacher, or help old people get around town. I'd sooner clean things up than add a tax.
 
2013-05-07 01:30:55 PM  

kab: RembrandtQEinstein: 3 steps to fixing the country

1. repeal all current sales and income taxes
2. impose a tax on all currency leaving the country (napkin math says ~10-15%)
3. impose an annual tax on all assets of value, including IP (napkin math again says ~3.4% to match current state and federal revenues).

I'm in the "get rid of sales tax" corner, but how are you going to enforce #3 exactly?



Obviously people will lie if asked to self-report, as shown with use taxes. People are also notoriously skeptical of the federal government.

So you're proposing that all citizens have to allow periodic entrance to their homes by both federal and state employees to inspect and determine the value of all possessions in order to assess tax liability? Based on arbitrary estimations of an item's worth, while accounting for depreciation or loss of functionality due to damage or normal wear and tear?

This may possibly be the stupidest suggestion that I have ever heard in my entire life, for at least five reasons I can think of off the top of my head. Congratulations!
 
2013-05-07 01:31:22 PM  

Majick Thise: whidbey: i'm not much of a fan of regressive taxation, but you really seem to hate ANY taxes.

Which is unrealistic, frankly, given our revenue shortfalls.

Funny that I am as far from a tea bagger as one can be and you accuse me of hating all taxes. Their hasn't been a congress controlled by either party that has had ANY fiscal responsibility at all since Nixon took us off the gold standard. I don't hate taxes per se... I like roads and other infrastructure, national defense and national parks. I like the protection of law.... or at least I did. It seems this congress and many before it have decided that the protection of law only applies to whoever lobbies them with the most money. They also seem to feel that they are protected from the law. As for the rest of us they seem, by their actions, to feel that the law is there to control the masses and of course, to part the masses from any money they might have. They are spend happy fools, they and their predecessors have dug this hole. If our country and its citizens weren't being drug down as well I would say they dug the hole and we should let them bury themselves in it.

Yeah I REALLY have a bad opinion of congress


I don't blame you. Bush and Company really jacked up the deficits wasting trillions of dollars in two stupid "wars" and tax cuts for the richest people and businesses in America.

And because of that irresponsible fiscal meltdown, pretty much all of the 4 years the Democrats have been in office, they've been forced to divert whatever resources we have to addressing those failures.

But that has little to do with whether the Internet is subject to regulation. It's only begun to be a huge source of commerce in this country, if not worldwide, and we will see taxes and duties at some point in the near future.

Though granted, regressive taxes suck and we should oppose them no matter.
 
2013-05-07 01:36:11 PM  

RembrandtQEinstein: most theoretical research is done w/ public funds now anyway so nothing would change there


You can't possibly be this stupid. I've obviously been drawn in by the best trolling I've seen today.
 
2013-05-07 01:39:59 PM  

R.A.Danny: whidbey: I'm not much of a fan of regressive taxation, but you really seem to hate ANY taxes.

I may be jaded since I come from Chicago, but I thoroughly believe at least 50% of my hard earned tax money is being stolen, never to build a road, a park, pay a teacher, or help old people get around town. I'd sooner clean things up than add a tax.


Well I wouldn't know about that. Seems like where the revenue goes would be a separate issue.

Agreed that we probably wouldn't have to raise taxes (much) if huge multi-billion corporations actually paid them.
 
2013-05-07 02:08:23 PM  
So who wants to take bets on when they next law comes out that says teh 5 states that dont have sales tax must institute one because its unfair to those that do?
 
2013-05-07 02:24:56 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: You've been hyping the complexities and expenses of sales tax software and services but completely ignoring the fact that the States will have to provide them  to sellers for free.


The states have to provide tax compliance tools for free?

What dreamworld do you live in?
 
2013-05-07 02:26:59 PM  

Bisu: feckingmorons: So your argument is that you can calculate it different ways based on jurisdiction so you don't owe the tax?

Is that what you're saying? That is wrong. While tax compliance methodology may varyby jurisdiction, the compliance requirement still exists.

We're discussing reality not some alternative world in which you can scheme to defraud the state by structuring your transactions to be serially below some threshold, that is generally a felony in and of itself.


No, retard. It's actually legal. I thought you were just dumb but obviously now you're a stupid troll. Itemizing your taxes is illegal? LOL? Ignored.



You're going to ignore me because you're too stupid to realize tax fraud is a crime. OK.
 
2013-05-07 02:39:22 PM  

Rindred: So, if I buy something online. The vendor/store isn't in my state. The company that I have my credit card with doesn't reside in my state. The company that processes the credit card to pay the vendor doesn't reside in my state. Question: what entitles my state to even one penny of that transaction? If I cross a state border and buy a sandwich, I don't pay my home state sales tax on it. This isn't the same thing how?


Because the transportation network to deliver your goods and system of trade laws to protect your transaction need funding.

Welcome to civilization where the infrastructure to provide modernity and stability needs a funding source.

Want no taxes? Try Darfur, The Congo, or Afghanistan.
 
2013-05-07 02:43:58 PM  

Joe Blowme: So who wants to take bets on when they next law comes out that says teh 5 states that dont have sales tax must institute one because its unfair to those that do?


Who wants to take bets that retards like Joe here will continue to not understand what this bill actually does?
 
2013-05-07 02:48:53 PM  

lohphat: Because the transportation network to deliver your goods and system of trade laws to protect your transaction need funding.


I guess the fuel taxes and various vehicle and mileage taxes that shipping companies pay and pass along to the consumer don't count?
 
2013-05-07 03:00:36 PM  

feckingmorons: BarkingUnicorn: You've been hyping the complexities and expenses of sales tax software and services but completely ignoring the fact that the States will have to provide them  to sellers for free.

The states have to provide tax compliance tools for free?

What dreamworld do you live in?


I have a dream.  I have a dream that one day, people will read the article before commenting on it, especially when commenting several hours after the story is posted.  I have a dream that people who call other people morons with their very name don't act like morons themselves.  I have a dream of people who are well informed rather than completely ignorant.

Who am I kidding, it's Fark.
 
2013-05-07 03:17:03 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Joe Blowme: So who wants to take bets on when they next law comes out that says teh 5 states that dont have sales tax must institute one because its unfair to those that do?

Who wants to take bets that retards like Joe here will continue to not understand what this bill actually does?


So you didnt know there are 5 states that charge no sales tax? Sorry to hear that, learn something new everyday huh.
 
2013-05-07 03:38:39 PM  

homeschooled: Also, I uhhhh.... I live in Texas. Yeah, Texas.

My name is Judy and I was just giving an example and definitely didn't just admit to tax evasion.


Be expecting a knock...Judy

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-07 04:15:44 PM  

Joe Blowme: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Joe Blowme: So who wants to take bets on when they next law comes out that says teh 5 states that dont have sales tax must institute one because its unfair to those that do?

Who wants to take bets that retards like Joe here will continue to not understand what this bill actually does?

So you didnt know there are 5 states that charge no sales tax? Sorry to hear that, learn something new everyday huh.


I learned that your ability to form an intelligent comeback is entirely non-existent.

Senate: "Hey, people haven't been self-reporting or paying sales taxes on Internet purchases as already required by law.  We should do something about that."
You: "HERP, SLIPPERY SLOPE, DERP."
 
2013-05-07 04:16:15 PM  
Can't wait to see the great State of Alabama try to prosecute an online merchant based in New Hampshire for failing to collect sales tax for the great State of Alabama.  Hilarious hijinks will indeed ensue!
 
2013-05-07 04:40:54 PM  

Pangea: I completely understand that it is "fair" for me to pay local sales tax on items I buy online, but this will not save retailers.

I typically buy my supplements from drugstore.com rather than GNC.com because they don't charge sales tax and shipping like GNC.com does. Some products are only available on the GNC website for higher prices, so I will occasionally go that route.

Making me pay the sales tax at drugstore.com will not get me into a local GNC store because of convenience and avoiding douchey sales clerks. It will instead cause me to stop buying from the chain althogether.


How can GNC's price be higher than drugstore.com's if the latter doesn't carry the product?  Is drugstore.com displaying  a page that says,  "This is what we would charge IIF we sold this stuff?"

This bill isn't about leveling the playing field between online sellers.
 
2013-05-07 04:52:28 PM  

MikeM: Can't wait to see the great State of Alabama try to prosecute an online merchant based in New Hampshire for failing to collect sales tax for the great State of Alabama.  Hilarious hijinks will indeed ensue!


Because they have not gotten ready to?

http://www.taxrates.com/blog/2011/10/27/alabama-and-the-streamlined- sa les-and-use-tax-agreement/
 
2013-05-07 04:57:13 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: This bill isn't about leveling the playing field between online sellers.


Not the strongest card to play when debating a bill called "The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 "
 
2013-05-07 04:58:28 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: BarkingUnicorn: This bill isn't about leveling the playing field between online sellers.

Not the strongest card to play when debating a bill called "The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 "


You should see what th violence against women act  is about.
 
2013-05-07 05:19:15 PM  

dbrunker: Senator Ron Wyden (D) says...

The Online Sales Tax:

1. violates state sovereignty by forcing one state to enforce the laws of other states
2. is discriminatory. Internet businesses are required to get information on where products will be used - brick & mortar stores aren't
3. is coercive and burdensome. Internet businesses would be forced to collect taxes for over 9000 tax jurisdictions
4. undermines successful small businesses - requiring them to spend time and money playing tax-collector instead of growing
5. threatens Internet freedom by forcing e-businesses to enforce laws from jurisdictions where they aren't located


Wyden is a ludicrous liar and anyone who cites his lies is a ludicrous tool who hasn't read or chooses to ignore the bill.

1. no State is forced to collect sales tax from remote sellers or lift a finger to help another State do so.  The bill "authorizes" such collaboration; it does not mandate it.
2. no seller has to collect a delivery address if he doesn't need to; if none, buyer's address or seller's address is used
3. the States have to deal with their 9600 tax jurisdictions & sellers are immune from State errors
4. the burden is so trivial that whining about it makes a million-dollar online seller look as ridiculous as one who says, "OMG! I have to actually DELIVER products!"
5. "Internet freedom" is not more important that social responsibility.  All affected sellers are located in the goddam United States.  All of them gross at least a million a year through interstate commerce.  They don't deserve a free ride just because they're doing it over the Internet.
 
2013-05-07 06:39:40 PM  

I created this alt just for this thread: dbrunker: The Online Sales Tax:

1. violates state sovereignty by forcing one state to enforce the laws of other states The law already exists and as a consumer of goods over the internet, you should have been keeping track of, and paying this tax already; this just shifts the burden from the consumer to the merchant Some states do not have this law, and prefer the Feds to take care of it.
2. is discriminatory. Internet businesses are required to get information on where products will be used - brick & mortar stores aren't Where the product(s) will be used are irrelevant and have no bearing on this law.  Only where they are purchased from matters, and you bet your ass brick & mortar stores have to keep track of that (for businesses with brick & mortar stores in multiple cities or states) If that's the case, then charge the sale tax from where it originates, much like the brick-n-mortar. A small business located solely in Oregon should not have to pay taxes in Texas because they sold "Bubba" some derp-wipes.
3.  is coercive and burdensome. Internet businesses would be forced to collect taxes for over 9000 tax jurisdictions Using software that will be provided free of charge requiring someone to actually charge more to figure out their taxes, instead of a flat rate.
4. undermines successful small businesses - requiring them to spend time and money playing tax-collector instead of growing Again, they get free software for this.  It's just additional administrative that can be mostly automated, ffs Again, small business would be hurt more come Tax Time, even with the "free" software. Don't you ever file with the IRS via something other than Taxcut?
5. threatens Internet freedom by forcing e-businesses to enforce laws from jurisdictions where they aren't located  Now you're just being (more) stupid

How is it stupid? After all, eBay is against it, so it must affect them. Why not just tax anyone selling off the classifieds, or garage sales, or auctions?
 
2013-05-07 06:55:42 PM  

People_are_Idiots: Why not just tax anyone selling off the classifieds, or garage sales, or auctions?


because some people acually consider the cost of enforcement as part of a tradeoff?

Technically all those case do owe appropriate tax.  Is it a good use of public funds to chase down those that neglectfully.

In my town, you are not pestered if you rent a table at the flea market only rarely.   If you do it on a weekly basis, the state tax guy who watches the flea market makes you aware of what is expected.

/I never heard if he talks to the business license people too or not.
 
2013-05-07 07:16:08 PM  

Nabb1: I'd rather have this than my income taxes going up. At least everyone pays this.


People with lower incomes spend a higher percentage of their income on sales taxes.  This is a tax that hurts the poor.
 
2013-05-07 07:24:59 PM  
I remember when candidate Obama promised that Americans making under $200k per year would "not pay another dime in taxes."

So i have faith he will veto this if it gets through Congress.
 
2013-05-07 07:29:47 PM  

GORDON: Nabb1: I'd rather have this than my income taxes going up. At least everyone pays this.

People with lower incomes spend a higher percentage of their income on sales taxes.  This is a tax that hurts the poor.


www.washingtonpost.com

www.washingtonpost.com

Source
 
2013-05-07 07:44:39 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: This is a tax that hurts the poor.


Especially the poor who have already paid for Amazon Prime.
 
2013-05-07 07:46:48 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: BarkingUnicorn: This is a tax that hurts the poor.

Especially the poor who have already paid for Amazon Prime.


Pay more attention to who you're quoting.  GORDON said that, not me.  I only posted a couple of graphs depicting reality.
 
2013-05-07 08:06:03 PM  

GORDON: I remember when candidate Obama promised that Americans making under $200k per year would "not pay another dime in taxes."

So i have faith he will veto this if it gets through Congress.


Not sure if herp or derp.
 
2013-05-07 08:11:31 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Pangea: I completely understand that it is "fair" for me to pay local sales tax on items I buy online, but this will not save retailers.

I typically buy my supplements from drugstore.com rather than GNC.com because they don't charge sales tax and shipping like GNC.com does. Some products are only available on the GNC website for higher prices, so I will occasionally go that route.

Making me pay the sales tax at drugstore.com will not get me into a local GNC store because of convenience and avoiding douchey sales clerks. It will instead cause me to stop buying from the chain althogether.

How can GNC's price be higher than drugstore.com's if the latter doesn't carry the product?  Is drugstore.com displaying  a page that says,  "This is what we would charge IIF we sold this stuff?"

This bill isn't about leveling the playing field between online sellers.



I don't know how the logistics shake out. I know that drugstore.com carries about 9 out of 10 items I buy from GNC, including all the standard stuff like multi-vitamins, protein powders, fish oil, etc. for a better price (and no tax or shipping) for the items that they do carry.

I also prefer the Complx5 preworkout powder which is only available only from GNC directly. The intended effect of this bill is presumably to get me to shop at a local retailer (GNC in this case) because I no longer save the tax money from an online purchase. The actual effect will be that I choose a comparable product from the online-only retailer (drugstore.com).

They can offer a better price than the chain store with brick and mortar locations because they don't have to offset the operating expenses of physical retail stores. Hence my claim that this measure will "not save retailers." Perhaps I should have been more clear that I am referring to retailers that operate physical corporate stores in retail locations.
 
2013-05-07 08:26:45 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: GORDON: Nabb1: I'd rather have this than my income taxes going up. At least everyone pays this.

People with lower incomes spend a higher percentage of their income on sales taxes.  This is a tax that hurts the poor.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 567x377]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 564x357]

Source


No where near progressive enough.
 
2013-05-07 08:32:58 PM  

Frederick: BarkingUnicorn: GORDON: Nabb1: I'd rather have this than my income taxes going up. At least everyone pays this.

People with lower incomes spend a higher percentage of their income on sales taxes.  This is a tax that hurts the poor.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 567x377]

[www.washingtonpost.com image 564x357]

Source

No where near progressive enough.


I  agree.  A more steeply progressive income tax would slow the growth of wealth disparity.  Exempt the lowest X% and eliminate FICA taxes too.  Just tax income with one tax.  Then we're really "all in this together" and there's no more quibbling about who gets the benefit of what, what's already been taxed, etc.  It's all foolishness.
 
2013-05-07 08:38:59 PM  

Pangea: The intended effect of this bill is presumably to get me to shop at a local retailer (GNC in this case) because I no longer save the tax money from an online purchase. The actual effect will be that I choose a comparable product from the online-only retailer (drugstore.com).


The intended effect is to collect sales tax from you no matter where you buy.  Everything in the bill except its title is about that alone.
 
2013-05-07 09:18:29 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: I agree. A more steeply progressive income tax would slow the growth of wealth disparity. Exempt the lowest X% and eliminate FICA taxes too. Just tax income with one tax. Then we're really "all in this together" and there's no more quibbling about who gets the benefit of what, what's already been taxed, etc. It's all foolishness.


I'd go so far as to say a majority of people who have a basic understanding of income tax agree.  So why isnt it more progressive and when will we do something about it?

Of all the various taxes, sales tax is one I have fewer problems with (as compared to income tax -very problematic).  But my biggest beef with sales tax is that it can be collected many times on the same item.  For example a car.  Every time the same car is sold, sales tax is collected.  I find that wrong.
 
2013-05-07 09:42:25 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Vlad_the_Inaner: BarkingUnicorn: This is a tax that hurts the poor.

Especially the poor who have already paid for Amazon Prime.

Pay more attention to who you're quoting.  GORDON said that, not me.  I only posted a couple of graphs depicting reality.


BarkingUnicorn: Vlad_the_Inaner: BarkingUnicorn: This is a tax that hurts the poor.

Especially the poor who have already paid for Amazon Prime.

Pay more attention to who you're quoting.  GORDON said that, not me.  I only posted a couple of graphs depicting reality.


Yep,  my mistake.  You pasted a couple of graphs frm an article that said:

"As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest. "

That's such a VAST contrast from what Nabb1 said that i can't see how I erred so greatly.

Again, my apologies.
 
2013-05-07 10:00:22 PM  

basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....



First they came for the billionaires and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a billionaire,
They they came for the millionaires and I didn't speak out because i wasn't a millionaire,
Then they came for the people who made more than $250k and I didn't speak out because I didn't make that,
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
 
2013-05-07 10:02:02 PM  

Frederick: BarkingUnicorn: I agree. A more steeply progressive income tax would slow the growth of wealth disparity. Exempt the lowest X% and eliminate FICA taxes too. Just tax income with one tax. Then we're really "all in this together" and there's no more quibbling about who gets the benefit of what, what's already been taxed, etc. It's all foolishness.

I'd go so far as to say a majority of people who have a basic understanding of income tax agree.  So why isnt it more progressive and when will we do something about it?


Everyone blames the rich, bu the real problem is people who think they're going to become rich.  As voters, they far outnumber the rich and could easily force higher taxes upon the rich.  But they vote for lower taxes on the rich because they're looking out for their futures and the futures of their children, who are also going to be rich.  So blame optimism.

Of all the various taxes, sales tax is one I have fewer problems with (as compared to income tax -very problematic).  But my biggest beef with sales tax is that it can be collected many times on the same item.  For example a car.  Every time the same car is sold, sales tax is collected.  I find that wrong.

I can't begin to imagine your reasons for thinking any of that.
 
2013-05-07 10:28:42 PM  

CorruptDB: feckingmorons: BarkingUnicorn: You've been hyping the complexities and expenses of sales tax software and services but completely ignoring the fact that the States will have to provide them  to sellers for free.

The states have to provide tax compliance tools for free?

What dreamworld do you live in?

I have a dream.  I have a dream that one day, people will read the article before commenting on it, especially when commenting several hours after the story is posted.  I have a dream that people who call other people morons with their very name don't act like morons themselves.  I have a dream of people who are well informed rather than completely ignorant.

Who am I kidding, it's Fark.


You can read the AP article, which contains several errors (find them and win a prize) or you can read the proposed legislation itself. I go with the authoritative source.

I venture that it will never become law.
 
2013-05-07 10:37:56 PM  

People_are_Idiots: I created this alt just for this thread: dbrunker: The Online Sales Tax:

1. violates state sovereignty by forcing one state to enforce the laws of other states The law already exists and as a consumer of goods over the internet, you should have been keeping track of, and paying this tax already; this just shifts the burden from the consumer to the merchant Some states do not have this law, and prefer the Feds to take care of it.
2. is discriminatory. Internet businesses are required to get information on where products will be used - brick & mortar stores aren't Where the product(s) will be used are irrelevant and have no bearing on this law.  Only where they are purchased from matters, and you bet your ass brick & mortar stores have to keep track of that (for businesses with brick & mortar stores in multiple cities or states) If that's the case, then charge the sale tax from where it originates, much like the brick-n-mortar. A small business located solely in Oregon should not have to pay taxes in Texas because they sold "Bubba" some derp-wipes.
3.  is coercive and burdensome. Internet businesses would be forced to collect taxes for over 9000 tax jurisdictions Using software that will be provided free of charge requiring someone to actually charge more to figure out their taxes, instead of a flat rate.
4. undermines successful small businesses - requiring them to spend time and money playing tax-collector instead of growing Again, they get free software for this.  It's just additional administrative that can be mostly automated, ffs Again, small business would be hurt more come Tax Time, even with the "free" software. Don't you ever file with the IRS via something other than Taxcut?
5. threatens Internet freedom by forcing e-businesses to enforce laws from jurisdictions where they aren't located  Now you're just being (more) stupid How is it stupid? After all, eBay is against it, so it must affect them. Why not just tax anyone selling off the classifieds, or garag ...


1) This is being touted as a states' rights effort by the sponsor.

2) The assumption from a physical store is that the item will be used in state. You can also avoid sales tax collection (but not use tax if your home location requires it) by paying at a store in one state and having the merchandise shipped to another state as the presumption that it will be used instate is effectively reputed.

3) There is no software that will be provided free of charge, I have no idea where that idea came from. The state of California and all its taxing jurisdictions are not going to write code for every POS and webcart system. The idea that there will be free software is complete and utter nonsense.

4)Again, there is no free software. The burden for tax compliance falls squarely on the merchant.

5) People selling at garage sales (if frequent), classifieds( again if more than casual sales) and the like are presently required to collect and remit sales tax in their jurisdictions. If you buy anything from an online merchant and your local jurisdiction has a sales tax you are required to pay a use tax. Adding the burden to small businesses (and yes businesses that have more than $1MM are still small businesses) is counter productive. The effort should be to advance tax use tax compliance through efforts in the state's departments of revenue.
 
Displayed 50 of 573 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report