Slashdot Mirror
EU Plans to Tax Internet Sales
Arctic Fox writes: "In a bid to help European online sales, the EU is planning to tax online transactions. The article on Yahoo, says that the taxes will apply only to products downloaded from the internet, such as software,videos and music. They may elect to tax physical items (books, hardware,etc) at a later date. American companies will be forced to charge European customers the appropriate VAT in their home country. No details on how this will be enforced."
So, I found a map, located the depot, and trapsed over there. I handed over my card, and the guy said "So, you've been buying from Amazon have you? They're cracking down on all internet purchases you know?". I had to pay the VAT (sales tax) on my CDs bought in the states before I could collect them.
Apparently, almost all internet based purchases from major US sites are now already attacting VAT charges in the UK. I know a friend who bought from Think Geek got stung a few weeks before for the VAT on his purchase.
This post will enter the public domain 70 years after my death, unless Disney buys another extension.
of something that happened when I was in highschool.
Me and a friend snuck out one night and t.p.'d a guys house that we knew. We even told him we'd be coming. But we waited until like 2 or 3 a.m. and he fell asleep watching out for us.
It was awesome - he woke up, looked outside and thought it had snowed. It was great - we told all our friends about it. I told my folks. They thought it was very funny.
Then they talked to my buddy's parents. And my dad comes to me and says, "Gary's parent's did not like what he did. They grounded him. It wouldn't be fair if nothing happened to you- you are grounded too."
The EU is saying "Hey we can't screw our own companies and rake in the taxes because the consumers have options. We have to make sure we screw everybody."
Losers.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
The article is pretty vague on the specifics of what gets taxed. Is a subscription service subject to the VAT? So if someone wanted to subscribe to a web publication, would the tax have to be paid?
If not, then there's a workaround for this tax: Call it a "subscription" to a particular area of a web site where the product is downloadable "for free" by all subscribers to that section.
And if the subscriber is an educational institution, you can charge them a "subscription fee" for every person in the school and get around that pesky per-CPU pricing. Sweet!
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
In a bid to help European online sales, the EU is planning to tax online transactions
quick post here -- but how exactly will TAXING online transaction HELP online sales?
seems like a real nonstarter, or simply a mistake
I strongly suspect "being forced to act as a tax-collector on behalf of a foreign country" would fall in the same boat. Heck, given the state of .US tax law, it wouldn't surprise me if it was considered seditious behavior. ;-)
D
The EU can't do much about sites run strictly by outfits in the US. Mom and pop type online stores are far too numerous (and many don't even ship to Europe, anyway).
What ths is really aimed at is the Yahoo's and Amazon's, who do maintain a presence in the EU. Because they have offices and such in the EU, that does place them under EU jurisdiction, to some extent.
Amazon has at least one order fulfillment center in the EU (I want to say in Rotterdam, but I could be wrong). Yahoo has offices in Munich, Paris, London, and other EU cities.
In short, if you don't want to be charged, the best course may simply be to never physically do business in the EU. Don't open a Parisian office. If you need to be in Europe, Switzerland's not in the EU.
The Deloitte and Forrester research companies measure progress in the growth of e-commerce and forecast that by the end of 2002, online sales are expected to exceed $1 trillion, consisting of business-to-business sales of $842 billion and business-to-consumer sales of $180 billion (5). What effect could an Internet sales taxes have on these projected online sales? A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the imposition of sales taxes could reduce online spending by as much as 30%. A 30% reduction in projected online consumer sales of $180 billion means $54 billion in lost retail sales. A 5% tax rate on the remaining $126 billion in sales would yield $ 6.3 billion in new sales tax revenues, but result in a net loss of $ 47.7 billion to the economy. Even if a 3% sales tax resulted in a more moderate 10% reduction in online sales, the $18 billion loss in sales volume would far exceed the $ 4.86 billion in new sales tax revenues.
These are striking numbers, even if US-centric. The EU should really be careful before instituting any such thing...
How does adding a tax help anything? It gives users a reason not to buy online. Besides, what about shareware. The demo product is free, therefore $0 tax. Now the license # that I paid the vendor to email me is not taxable. Not to be insulting, but its nice to know the EU is just as whacked out as our US policies.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Maybe, just maybe, because it's not the *job* of the government (well, the US government, anyway) to provide/administer/control health care to the masses? See, the funny thing is, when you don't live in a socialist country, you don't just get everything handed to you on a silver platter. You do, however, get the freedom to choose what you want and don't want.
Besides, the government does a bad enough job with what it's already responsible for, why should we trust it to manage health care?
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
So the difference from today is that it will save customs for a lot of work since they currently are sending me a bill for the taxes after I got the package. They are also months behind as it is.
Anyway before ranting about having to pay taxes on internet sales, I just wanted to say that the taxes already are there if you follow the law, but with the change so that the internet companies have to charge for the taxes, it should be easier for us buyers to get stuff from the internet without having to deal with all those mails and bills from customs afterwards.
The only big hurdle is I see it is a way to implement it without killing the small shops outthere.
I worked for a dot-com in the UK which had to charge VAT on all purchases, based on the location to which it was shipping the item. The rules were different for every country -- the price threshold at which the tax applied, the tax rate itself, the types of items to which the tax applied -- and it was a nightmare to code a system which could handle every possibility. Enforcing this rule will only further discourage American companies from shipping to Europe -- something they're already aggravatingly unwilling to do.
When are governments going to grasp the idea that none of them have any jurisdiction over the Internet?
And we burned down your White House in 1814 and we can do it again. Nyah.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
In a bid to help European online sales, the EU is planning to tax online transactions.
In other news, in a bid to help women feel safer while walking alone at night, the government is planning to legalize rape.
WTF?!
To hate the French. :-)
Sorry. That was rude and mean... but honestly... even the FRENCH hate the French.
A) How in the name of God is it my responsibility to pay for other's health insurance?
B) People who don't have health insurance almost universally (there are exceptions) don't have it because either they choose not to have it, or because they made poor choices which resulted in their inability to have it. Geez, even fast food places offer health insurance to full-time employees! At Chick-Fil-A here in Georgia they offer it at no cost to the employee!!!
C) Well, whys hould it be cheaper...hmm maybe because we're not a part of the EU and we shouldn't subject to your silly socialist laws and regulations (wake up, socialism does not work in the real world! It results in a crap economy, crap education, and crap health care, and eventually, pissed off citizens!) We're a sovereign nation. Instead of trying to get us to enforce your laws, try getting ISPs in your country's to enforce it. Charge a small user's fee. Then you'd make money off people who didn't even make online purchases...
Derek Greene
Are they going to tax "sharing"?
Seems like a poweful disincentive to actually obey copyright law to me (but what do I know?)
If I download software from a UK site I have to pay VAT (17.5% sales tax) - why should it be cheaper to download it from the US.
I don't have a problem with the UK taxing its citizens regardless of where they purchase the item. But that doesn't give them a right to force U.S. companies to act as the tax collector. How are they going to stop UK citizens from evading the sales tax? Not my problem.
You can pass any law you like, but it can only apply to people within your jusidiction. They CANNOT force foriegn companies to do anything. If they are taxing based on the purchaser's location then it must be the purchaser's responsibility. This pretty much requires that customs seize the import until the buyer pays the tax. I wanna see them try that with internet downloads LOL!
There are good reasons there's is no state tax on interstate commerce in the US. You start getting really stupid situations otherwise.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Of course a Brit could point out that taxation without representation is practiced in the US. You do realise that non citizens pay income and sales taxes ?
American tax laws require the buyer to pay sales tax in the state in which he purchased it. It then expects the buyer to report these taxes when he files his tax returns. The systems seems to be doing the same thing, you pay sales tax to your local municipality
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
The last version of the proposal I saw (which is a while back now) set a minimal ceiling below which they didn't consider the hassle of collecting the tax justified nor the practicality of forcing small businesses to collect it.
Within the EU there are similar VAT floors below which VAT is optional (there are cases that it makes sense to charge it when doing business to business work).
This also leads to such fun as people who run two companies, a VAT registered one that paints buildings for businesses (who can claim it back) and a non VAT one that does smaller amounts of business keeps below the VAT limit and paints houses for individuals (who cant)
They may elect to tax physical items (books, hardware,etc) at a later date.
Come on, is this 2002 or 1992? Seriously, the other part of the news (i.e. taxing online transactions for online goods) is totally valid, because it's not being done yet, AFAIK.
There is a concept of EU's taxation area, which includes pretty much the whole EU with a couple of exceptions (like Jersey). Since something like 1993 there has been the EU "Single Market", and most physical goods imported from elsewhere have been subject to VAT. If I order something from for example the US or Australia or Japan I have to pay VAT if the package gets caught in the customs. If I order something from the UK or France or Germany, who cares, it's from the taxation area, and taxes are assumed to have already been paid. Many European online vendors have VAT already included in their prices, and for example Amazon.co.uk charges the VAT based on the destination country.
At least some Canadian online vendors go around VAT by sending their shipments to the customer from some country in the EU. The package isn't subject to VAT if it's sent from France or Belgium. I don't know the legality of this, but the concept sounds somewhat dubious, despite allowing cheaper prices for the customer.
At least in Finland the key is to order less in one package, because our customs don't bother to charge less than 10 euros. I have something like 90 DVD titles (some of them being 5-6 disc boxes), with almost all of them being ordered from the net, and only 15 of them originate from the EU taxation area. I haven't paid VAT (22% in Finland) or customs (3.5%) for a single one of the imported ones, because I order only one or two discs at a time.
More information about VAT is available at European Union's VAT info page.
Does anyone else think that this is in return for the US stance on imported steel? I just saw an article on CNN about trade issues between the EU and the US, and thought hey, this makes sense from an EU perspective, if they are going to up barriers to exporting EU products to the US, then lets make it harder for US companies to make money from the EU - by removing the pricing advantage by addition of tax. I don't think this is really a taxation issue, I think its partial retaliation for the US imposing restrictions on imports into the US from the EU.
Correct you are! I sure as hell wouldn't want to send a kid to a public school in this day and age. Not when the schools are more concerned with teaching Political Correctness than anything else.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
I never said theirs is worse. I said socialism results in a crap education. all public education systems are a result of socialism, hence they all suck. I'd never send a kid into a public school. If it meant working two jobs to pay for his or her education, I would NEVER do it.
Derek Greene
Are they going to tax "sharing"?
I think it was Greece that required all anarchists to register with the government (I find no evidence of such a law online, it may be apocryphal.) With Zen governance like that, you can do anything.
From an infrastructure standpoint, how would they tax downloaded information? There are a couple of ways-
1) The simplest way is to track the credit cards of everyone in the country. I have no idea what kind of credit cards Swedes even have (WTF is a "eurocard"? Is that real?) but I bet they use them for 95% of internet commerce. You could do the same thing with online checks, if europeans use those. You just make all the nations financial institutions report it to big brother whenever they transfer money out of the country. I bet Sweden does this already. This way you can enforce it entirely in-house. This would "catch" 95% of transactions.
2) Tax incoming data. Anytime you get more than X data over the course of some length of time, the government assumes it costs money. They tax you at some rate, unless a vendor turns in an electronic receipt for the purchase. Vendors that wanted to sell to europeans would have to play ball or their customers would get footed with crazy bills. "Maximum disruption, minimum benefit?" Yes, but I doubt the people in brussels care. This has the advantage of "catching" people who got their credit cards from the bank of antigua; a tiny sliver of the population who might otherwise escape. It would also tax filesharing.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
On a related note, going through customs recently got me wondering about import duties on electronic file downloads across borders. Since the import duty is supposed to be on the value of the item (not what you claim you paid for it -- "I got this Rolex for $5"), then what is the "value" of Apache? Should I claim warze even though I pay nothing for them? Should I shut up, lest I give them ideas?
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Naturally, you also don't drive on the public roads, accept any protection from the state-funded military or law enforctment, consume any of the air or water that are half-assedly protected by legislation, nor do you patronize any sports teams or consume any of the american-grown produce &/or livestock, which are all enabled by government subsidies.
Also, you're never going to have any kids, 'cos Slashdot Libertarians never get laid.
If I've misrepresented your argument, I apologize... I just don't give enough of a fuck to read that sort of stuff.
Imagine- they have to individually inspect all the incoming packages, sort and store a bunch of them, enter your address into a database, send you a notice, and deal with you when you get there- all for what, 17% of a $40 sale? I don't see how this can pay!
in saying.. "How is this going to help e-commerce??" and so on. It's simple.
Europeans already pay VAT (Value Added Tax) on purchases made within their own countries or the EU as a whole.
This means that buying stuff from the US can work out cheaper than buying it from your own country. So, by forcing US companies to tax EU citizens on purchases, this will force consumers to buy from e-commerce sites in the EU.
This sounds fair enough, but it's actually extremely unfair. For a start, many things are far cheaper in the US, or aren't ever available in the EU.
I'm a big Jewel fan, and her album came out in the US last year, so I ordered it from Amazon.com and paid about £15 in all, including delivery. Amazon.co.uk wanted £20!
I'd fully support the EU's ideas on this one if things in the EU were competitively priced. They're not. The EU business world is governed by cartels intent on driving prices as high as possible. It's only in the past year that CD prices have come down to US levels.. we used to pay up to three times more just five years ago!
So if the EU wants us to buy from EU stores, perhaps the EU should be a bit more like the US and open up its economy and not be so bureaucratic! If the US can have cheap gasoline and cheap CDs, I'm sure as hell the EU could too (since the EU is technically richer than the US and all).
mogorific carpentry experiments
This will of course have the opposite effect of making them money. Some entities increase charges when they need to make more money, this is typical of more socialist ideals and popular in Europe*. Others lower prices to make more money. This often sounds odd, but it's the principal of the bargain and reliance on good old marketing and upselling. Typically more a US ideal.
In England they need more money for whatever, so they raise taxes. In the US they lower taxes to stimulate the economy and produce more overall wealth.
As a US based company with British tech we get to see both sides of the coin quite clearly, and as a money making machine we're very confident of which works best. Here we sit processing an awful lot of credit card transactions every second, mostly for US customers because it's easy. Do you think any court in this land will force us to spend heaps of money supporting foreign tax laws? Do you think we're going to release those records without such an order?
Even if we were forced to charge said tax, what would actually happen is it would be cheaper and more cost effective for us to not do business with those countries. End result: Those countries have less imports from the US. Their loss not ours. A good lesson in shooting yourself in the foot.
Same thing. Thinking of opening an office in London... Any idea how much company tax and fees they pay over there? Waaay to much. End result is we declined and the UK lost out on a company branch that produces loads in tax every month. Greed got them poor. Plain old stupid.
Robert
WebsiteBilling.com Inc.
* Typically, IMHO, etc. etc.
I hope governments around the globe just tax the motherfucking living shit out of everything commercial on the Internet. Then the e-carpetbaggers will either go broke or start looking for another medium to fuck people over with... but at least the Internet will return to the global information opportunity it used to be before all this commercialization damn near destroyed it.
I think he was refering to "use" tax, which has been discussed here before. Most Americans don't declare this tax, but fortunately, they don't get audited for it very often.
And you'd be depriving your child[ren] the best part of education and the most important part of growing up: parents. Your children might end up with a good education, but they will probably have emotional problems.
Decides who?
Is the public opinnion in the EU supporting this?
I strongly doubt it.
There's 2 things that this can show:
1 - EU is a closed society
2 - EU is feudal and non future-minded
When are we going to allow eachother to get out of poverty and live happily together?
The economics of this is rather high for companies. Think about it. A company now has to hire a legal team to check whether they can sell to a certain country and how much tax to charge. This was the main issue that was holding back the sales tax of the internet a few years ago. It was far too difficult for interstate sales to calculate how much tax should be charged. It is even more difficult on a country level.
Now as you pointed out, the Customs service taxes goods coming into and out of a country. Let's say that you purchased a product online from a Brazilian site. They get taxed for it. Now the custom services adds additional tax on it. You are now double taxed on a product that should be taxed only once. How would you solve this logistical dilemma?
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
How can you pay for education if you don't get tax revenue? How bout roads? Or technology research funding? (remember, the internet was funded by tax dollars) Should you expect the government to take a step back and not get involved in the affairs of the citizens? People in general expect the gov. to provide a certain level of support and this can't be done without tax revenue.
Just think, how much money are states losing from tax revenues due to online purchases?
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
If you accept that they have no way to enforce this with companies that don't have a physical presence in an EU country(no US court will help them with this), logically they will be forced to block non-compliant web sites from EU countries. I can see it now:
1. EU finds high traffic/high volume download for money web sites that doesn't charge VAT
2. They send an informational message explaining you have to collect the tax from EU users
3. Some time passes, web site still isn't collecting VAT
4. Harsher message is sent threatening to block IP addresses from all EU countries.
5. More time passes. They block the web site, no one in the EU can access it.
Now it will be a bit difficult to "block" the IP address, but given the few number of paths into any country and the small number of companies running them, I believe it will be possible for them to shut off most access to a non-compliant site. By doing this they create a situation that might convince someone to reconsider collecting the VAT tax.
Even if smart users can "hack" their way around it, the company will find it's EU sales reduced to near zero. Plus if done right it could cut off email and other access(the block would work both ways). It's a very big stick and it's well within their reach.
Steps towards UK membership (from the EC-UK website):
All your questions answered here: FAQ
Quote:
How would these proposed VAT rules be enforced in the case of non-EU companies?
These proposals would require VAT registration only in the case of larger operators (over 100,000 of sales to private consumers per annum in the EU). Smaller operators and those with only occasional sales into the Community would be excluded from the scope of the tax.
In the case of larger operators, it is in their own interests to be seen to be in compliance with their legal obligations (including VAT obligations) arising from Internet trading because they themselves want to ensure that others respect their obligations in respect of the operators' rights, for example as regards copyright or other intellectual property rights. Legitimate operators certainly do not want to give credence to the idea that Internet is a zone where laws do not apply - the incentive to voluntary compliance should not therefore be underestimated.
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
Until the 3rd everything is correct. 4 and 5 do not exist. Believe me, there is no such thing as blocking out traffic from the EU.
;)
I dont' know if you are a citizen of the EU- well I am.
Where would you start the blockade? Which countries would agree? who would not? Even if we are all members of the EU, we are still COUNTRIES not states.
It takes AGES for the government of the EU to pass a law or something, because each and every country must first accept it, but most do not...
They are way too busy to get their own shit in check than blocking of sites which do not comply.
The next thing why blocking pages would be impossible is because there is no "top level IP organisiation" or whatever you might call them wihtin the EU. Every provider is on it's own.
So, why would Providers shut a path to a site down when other do not, thus creating an advance for them?
I think your vision might work in the states, but here in the EU the structure between the parts (states, countries whatever) is to loose to get into this. Well let's be happy about that
If you buy anything from outside the UK valued at over £13 and have it brought in third party then yo are meant to pay both duty and VAT on it.
You;ll find this normally does not happen as there are so many parcels coming through that it would be impossible for customs to deal with them all. Net result is they ignore most (but not all)m smaller items and low value items.
Occasionally you will be unlucky and have a small package targetted. This happened to me with some t-shirts I ordered from the US.
Your comments are interesting and cogently put. I'd like to point out a couple of things. First, I agree that it is not the job of the US government to provide healthcare because that is how your constitution is written. Other countries have chosen other paths.
Second, while there are inherent inefficiencies in a state-provision or state-funded health system, there are inherent inefficiencies in a private-provision system too. In a state-provision system, there is bureaucracy and the lack of a competitive incentive. In a private system, there is over-supply (else there couldn't be competition), potential gaps (there is no market incentive to provide any particular service beyond its being profitable and not all services will be profitable), and the generation of huge amounts of information related to billing because of the third-party payer system. Additionally, there are micro- and macro-economic efficiencies associated with state-provision--for instance, a state-provision system gains efficiencies of scale as an insurer of risk and as a purchaser by virtue of universal coverage. See the Wanless report produced for the UK gov't by that notorious socialist Derek Wanless (ex-CEO of a big UK retail bank and not a man to look kindly on unnecessary state involvement in health) for examples.
My third point is, you already do pay a lot for healthcare through taxes -- about 7% of GDP. You pay another 8% of GDP in health insurance/direct payments. For that, you get potentially excellent healthcare but lack of coverage for some people (c40m) and variable coverage of some diseases. Here in the UK, by contrast, we pay about 8% (shortly to be somewhat more...) and we get universal coverage, more variable care and never up to the top standards that your CEOs and rockstars can afford, and some diseases also not properly covered. There are no 100% correct choices, but there are advantages and disadvantages to each and it's important to be clear-eyed and clear-minded about them.
The internet tax in addition to 8.5% state sales tax in Calif* + 3.5% Tennesee export tax would easily push total taxes over 15%.
EU shoots itself in the foot yet again...
Guess what? EU tax laws are NOT ENFORCEABLE IN THE UNITED STATES! Officials of American companies that don't have a foreign subsidiary that can be pressured (like Yahoo France was) will no doubt roll on the floor laughing hysterically, and then start counting the extra sales they'll pick up by underpricing the companies that do have to abide by EU stupidities.
The EU cannot enforce this outside the EU, and they know it--look at their FAQ! The "enforcement" section is all about voluntary compliance--which will no doubt be a lot like the "voluntary compliance" where customers are supposed to voluntarily add required state sales taxes to mail orders here in the U.S. NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND PAYS TAXES VOLUNTARILY!
If I want to give my money away, I give it away to a church or charitable organization, not the eternally-corrupt, wasteful government.
In the U.S., mail order companies are only required to collect sales taxes in states in which they have an actual storefront presence because there are Constitutional problems with forcing a private business to act as a tax collector in another state. The same laws and issues will prohibit any legal requirements to collect taxes for a foreign authority such as the EU. If Lousiana can't force a California mail-order business to collect sales taxes from a Louisiana customer, what makes those idiots in the EU think they can?
---dragoness
A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. My mistake, I should've said TWO quarters, not one.
Either way, that's 6 months, not 8. That mini-recession DID included a few quarters before and after of slow or stagnant growth (all recessions do) which made the apparent effects longer. You can review all these numbers at omb.gov.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
This tax is simply unfair. With a mail or catalog sales, a tax is added if the retail company has a physical operation in the same state as the customer. However, my understanding of the European tax, and proposals for such a tax in the U.S., is that a with an Internet sale, a tax is added regardless of the retail company's physical location.
I truly do not see a substantial difference between these two methods of sales to provide for a different method of taxation: the provision of information for a product is provided to the customer in the same fashion:
1. With a catalog, the customer is sent and reads information concerning the product in his/her state, compared with the Internet, the customer receives and reads information concerning the product in his/her state; and
2. The transaction is conducted in the customer's state. With a catalog, the customer is typically at his/her state of residence and phones the retail operation to place an order --- with the Internet, the customer is typically at his/her state of residence and communicates with the retail operation, via a similar mode of transmission, to place an order.
If transactions via the Internet are to be taxed, it should be done fairly --- only taxation if the customer resides in a state where the retail operation has a physical operation: like mail-order sales.
--------------
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
If they don't like it they can refuse to sell to people with UK shipping/billing addresses.
This is about software delivered over the internet. There isn't necessarily a shipping/billing address in the first place.
US companies that sell goods the traditional way to British consumers have to register for VAT
That's not true.
Yep, you are right. But the tax is going to make that worse, and therefore it's a Bad Thing (tm). Furthermore it advances the idea of 'all things are taxeable' and fattens the already overfat tax rates in Europe a little more.
So, from my point of view as an European citizen that tax should be removed. (OTOH we should better do something against widespreasd government overspending and overtaxation in general, since for some strange reason there is not a single party here around promising (and fulfilling) substantial tax breaks. We need something like the US tax revolt in the ninties.
Are the EU countries going to collect sales tax for the individual states in the US when US residents but goods from companies in the EU? How are they going to track where the purchaser is? The sales tax varies not only from state to state, but often from county to county within the states. The EU has no intention of having their companies collect sales taxes for the States in the US. This is one sided legislation on people over which they have no authority.
My parents did work two jobs to give me an education: at home. Private school for 5 years and the rest were at home. The irony of it all: I had more friends when I was homeschooled along with better test scores than anyone in private school or public school and i began to excel in sports AFTER I started homeschooling. Go figure. My parents were always there for me when I needed them too. They could have been there more if they didn't have to pay for other kids education's with taxes.
Derek Greene
I'll cite the 20/80 principle here. It's just the way life works. It's not fair, but it's the way it is. A company has a responsibility to monitor it's own workers, if they don't and they pay lazy people that's their problem. However, if I were a majority stockholder in that company, I would want to make sure that they keep good workers employed. I'm a stockholder in society, yet I don't get a voice. Being in the top tax bracket gives you no benefits other than the warm fuzzy feeling you get when a homeless person accuses you of ruining society, when the last meal they ate you paid for.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
It's actually "Pareto's Principle", or the 20-80 Principle, or the 80-20 Rule. Gotta love Italian economists, but I'm sure you knew all about it. And it does have large "discernable relevance" as 20% of the population is responsible for society. Nuff said.
If that's the best that you can do, get up, turn off your computer, and walk away. Never look back. Probably just strikes a personal nerve with you, are you or your parents living on food stamps or something?
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.