States Push for Net Sales Taxes

Inevitable by mrpuffypants · 2003-09-26 09:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

What can you expect the states to do? They're fucked budget-wise and need to get back in black as soon as possible. This is just one of the lousy things that'll probably pass siimply because of the horendous budget situation the entire country is currently in.

Re:Inevitable by denisdekat · 2003-09-26 09:45 · Score: 1

I agree :) Do they have taxes in Canadia? I may just move my biz there, and get health insurance!!!

--
photoplankton
Re:Inevitable by tomstdenis · 2003-09-26 09:50 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Don't forget when your taxes go up, your shoes come off [in airports] and your kids get "reprogrammed patriotically" to snitch, this is all to prevent the terrorists from winning :-)

I say the best thing americans can do is diassociate from Bush and offer him as a war criminal :-)

Hmm... $87B for a war, less than half of that for education.... yeah your new tax dollars would be well spent.... :-|

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Re:Inevitable by mcwop · 2003-09-26 09:52 · Score: 1

I expect them to cut spending.

--
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Re:Inevitable by cubicledrone · 2003-09-26 10:03 · Score: 1

What can you expect the states to do?

CUT THEIR FUCKING BUDGETS

--
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Re:Inevitable by Pommpie · 2003-09-26 10:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do they have taxes in Canadia? I may just move my biz there, and get health insurance!!!
Like you wouldn't believe. Well, maybe you'd believe it. But we have them. Plus, our 7% goods and services tax. Woo.
However, we don't have to worry about Internet taxation. So you should move up here. Unless you're an undesirable, in which case, I doubt Costa Rica has Internet taxes.
Re:Inevitable by trompete · 2003-09-26 10:16 · Score: 1

I bet they could use some of that 87 billion dollars ($290/person in this country) to subsidize internet purchases for the tax values in consumers' states. Meaning, every time you buy something online from a different state, the feds pay for the sales tax on it (7.5% here in MN). It is just an idea. I'm not a big fan of blowing money on Iraq!

--
More than enough BS
Re:Inevitable by travler · 2003-09-26 10:17 · Score: 1

No it is not inevitable.

Think of what a tax is and what it is used for. A State tax is used to provide state citizens with things such as roads, schools, etc. What defines a state citizen is the actual peice of land that he/she/it lives on.

I buy product X in state Y (which is not my state). Do I recieve any of these things? No. Therefore it is kind of galling that I should want to 'volunteer' to do so.

A much better way for states to increase revenues (and in my own opinion the best tax of all) is the simple property tax. It is unavoidable, predictable, simple and cheap to collect for both the state and for the business/individual.

If a biz is taxed in this way then they will pass on the tax as a part of doing business to everyone. As I said: simple, cheap, effective.
Re:Inevitable by nanodik · 2003-09-26 10:49 · Score: 1

Can't believe the moderators ranked your comment as insightful. I hate taxes as much as the next guy - actually because I am a libertarian I hate them more than the next 99 guys. But the only thing worse than taxes are taxes that distort the economy to the point where they actually affect the way business is done en masse.

I am not sure that people actually buy stuff on the net to avoid state and local sales taxes, but I know when I compare prices on the net I usually factor in the lack of those taxes and the added shipping cost into the final decision. Consider if you were a business owner and you could be undercut by businesses on the net simply because internet businesses were not collecting state sales taxes.

I am all for the individual states getting their fiscal house in order without more taxes but I think to be intellectually honest one must admit the status quo is unfair to local business.
Re:Inevitable by Sloppy · 2003-09-26 10:57 · Score: 1

What can you expect the states to do?
If they must increase tax revenue, then make it a tax on some sort of service they provide. Make it something direct. I bitch a lot less about those kind of taxes, than taxes where I pay something and then ask, "Just how did I cost the government $n by doing this?" (My favorite is income tax: How does getting a raise, make my existence cost the government more?)
Ideally, taxes should be paid by the people who incur the expenses that the taxes go to pay. Road maintenance expensive? Tax driving. Like that.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:Inevitable by mkldev · 2003-09-26 11:17 · Score: 1

Except reality is otherwise. The online merchants tend to undercut local businesses by 30-50%. I don't know of any state sales tax that is quite that high (though Tennessee is getting close.... :-)
The problem is that sales tax is inherently a poor way of generating revenue. Even if states start charging taxes for online orders, people will just start picking up the telephone instead, like we used to. There is no gain to be had here for the states, despite their naive belief in this "magic bullet".
However, allowing taxation on internet purchases could potentially set back internet commerce by a decade by making it more costly to do business on the internet (since everyone would then start using the phone to place the actual order), thus resulting in higher prices, less competition, and a significant overall downturn in our nation's economy, resulting in countless lost jobs, resulting in decreased purchasing, resulting in decreased revenue from sales taxes. The net effect is a -decrease- in overall sales tax revenue.
Simply put, it just won't work.

--
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
Re:Inevitable by mOdQuArK! · 2003-09-26 11:26 · Score: 1

I bet they could use some of that 87 billion dollars

I bet they could've used some of that 87 billion dollars to hire more teachers. 87 billion will hire a LOT of teachers. Those teachers will spend that 87 billion. Businesses want to grow to meet that demand, businesses will want to hire trained people, teachers will train people, people get hired, people make money, people spend money, economy grows, etc.

Now where does most of that money when you spend it on a war? Building stuff to kill people? Into the bank accounts of people who are so rich that they don't really need any more money? With just enough "trickle-down" to give the so-called conservatives a few anecdotes to defend themselves?

I'm not really against your idea, I just can think of few ways of directly using $87 billion that I think would help our society more.
Re:Inevitable by trompete · 2003-09-26 11:43 · Score: 1

Hey man, I hear ya! As long as Bush and his buddies don't get the money. I'd be all for spending it on higher education and better wages for teachers/professors. College is too expensive, and teachers don't make enough money.
Have a good weekend!

--
More than enough BS
Re:Inevitable by nanodik · 2003-09-26 11:51 · Score: 1

I am not sure I agree with you analysis. In reality there is no difference between catalog orders and internet orders. The states should treat all retailers the same regardless of the matter in which the commerce took place and I don't think catalog retailing will ever be able to approach the volume of business done on the internet since to order from a catalog you need to have the thing in front of you. With the internet, you need only a computer.

I think what the states need to do, and have started to do, is to agree on a uniform sales tax code for internet purchases so that it is easier for internet businesses to comply. I could see a business model for a transaction brokerage to operate to collect and oversee state taxes to relieve very small .coms from doing paperwork.

But let's go with your analysis and say the state should ignore internet retailing. What then? Since the percentage of commerce being conducted over the internet grows each year, the states can either look at reduced sales tax revenues or increase some other tax. Increase other taxes on the local population and they only exacerbate the problem, creating more internet commerce and reducing the amount of tax revenues.

Also, virtually every state that has a sales tax also has a use tax. Simply put, if your retailer does not collect the state tax or you buy something out of state, then you as the new owner are responsible for paying the tax to the state. The only thing that keeps states from vigorously enforcing this is it is cost prohibitive in most instances

I'll go back to my original premise, that it is bad to treat businesses differently for tax purposes when they are enganged in the exact same business. Taxes that concentrate on form over substance will inevitably be avoided.
Re:Inevitable by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 11:59 · Score: 0

Heh, that's maybe being a bit too optimistic, I think.

Government.. spending less? Getting smaller, paying out less money to their friends? I doubt that.
Re:Inevitable by denisdekat · 2003-09-26 12:20 · Score: 1

I am actually nice, but goofy, is that ok up there in Canadia? In all seriousness, I actually love every Canadian I met so far, very nice well adjusted people...

--
photoplankton
Re:Inevitable by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 12:24 · Score: 0

They could have used it to replace the fundamentally flawed teacher/student system in public education as well. But in any case, I think we're in agreement that attention must be paid to our educational system.

Were it up to me, and only me, I think I'd spend a good portion of it on investments into making solar energy more efficient and actually building public solar plants, which charge at-cost rates, and which can never go into the private sector (simply because they're a necessary commodity). But that's socialism, and I'm crazy.
Re:Inevitable by DunbarTheInept · 2003-09-26 13:08 · Score: 1

Companies producing things in states benefit from the infrastructure in that state just as much as an individual owning property does. Hence the sales tax. If I own 1 acre of property and you own 1 acre of property but I use mine to live on and you use it to run a factory, then we aren't making use of the state's infrastructure to the same degree.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Inevitable by DunbarTheInept · 2003-09-26 13:10 · Score: 1

[...] more costly to do business on the internet (since everyone would then start using the phone to place the actual order)

Why? The proposed change is to make it so that it costs the SAME for phone orders (currently taxed) and internet orders (currently not taxed).

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Inevitable by mkldev · 2003-09-26 13:32 · Score: 1
For people who aren't familiar with use taxes, they basically boil down to taxes charged for using a product. The claim is that it is not taxing interstate commerce because it can then be taken out of state without paying the tax, so long as it is not used within the state. Basically, this provides the same exemption as is made for sales tax to resellers, however, and thus should reasonably be construed as putting its policy in line with sales taxes, hence regardless of word choise, it is, in fact, a sales tax on interstate commerce.
The problem with this is that sales taxes were intended to provide for basic services needed by brick-and-mortar stores, such as police and fire protection, etc. Goods imported into the state do not benefit from this protection, and thus cannot legitimately be charged sales tax. This is the spirit of the interstate commerce provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
The states get around this by calling it a "use tax", but in reality, it behaves identically to a sales tax, and thus any sane and reasonable judiciary should call it a sales tax, which would be illegal on interstate purchases.
Sadly, these cases keep coming up before conservative judiciaries who go solely by the letter of the laws, ignoring the spirit of the laws entirely. If they actually paid attention to the spirit of the laws, they would see them as what they are---thinly-veiled attempts to charge sales tax on interstate commerce. It is truly apalling that the courts have not struck these down as unconstitutional yet.
Regardless of the whole use tax issue, though, sales tax is a terrible means of generating revenue that is doomed to fail in the long run. There are two reasons for this: First, it punishes the people at the bottom unequally because they spend the majority of their income buying things. As such, it is the most completely discriminatory tax system one can impose from a consumer's perspective. The result is that states end up putting in clauses to allow certain goods to not be taxed. There is some question about the constitutionality of taxes with such provisions, as they are also clearly discriminatory from a business perspective. This could make for an interesting case in a few years.
Second, sales and use taxes are fundamentally tied to purchasing, which rises and falls with the economy much more so than other methods such as property taxes, income taxes, and corporate taxes. States that depend on sales tax are not really collapsing because of internet commerce. They are collapsing because:
- Purchasing as a whole has decreased
- States squandered the increased revenues during the economic boom on new programs instead of saving it or using it to pay off debts
- States created new programs during the good times, which still must be paid for
Instead of whining about how internet sales are hurting their revenue, those state legislators should get off their overpaid backsides and fix the broken tax system that they depend upon. The problem is, if they actually moved to a fair tax system, they would never be reelected... and that is, after all, what this comes down to....
*sigh*
--
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
Re:Inevitable by russotto · 2003-09-26 13:43 · Score: 1

Phone orders are not currently taxed, if you phone the order in to a company which does not have a business nexus in the state. Mail-order, phone-order, and Internet-order are all the same for the purposes of sales tax.
Re:Inevitable by Rob+Simpson · 2003-09-26 13:58 · Score: 1

Yeah, because we've always had them. GST anyway - PST is only on in-province stuff.
While our taxes are pretty high, when you factor in health insurance and whatnot, I doubt it's much more. I pay 1/3 of my gross in income taxes, and there's 7% GST and 7.5% PST (in BC, thanks a bunch Gordon Campbell - drive safely, eh?). So the gov't gets about 43% of my money.
Re:Inevitable by Justarius · 2003-09-26 15:49 · Score: 1

heh, yea Costa Rica doesn't have internet taxes, but you forget then you have to pay shipping and duties and any other additional import tax. Just to give you an idea - you have to tack on an additional 2.5% duties for any computer component - and if you ship it via a courier, you pay quite a dime for their service. You can also use PO BOXes in Miami (or some other location, but usually they're in Miami) that ships direct to Costa Rica, though you have a weight limit - and going over that is expensive.

Heh, I guess though, with the cost of living there being lower - then you have to spend a little to save a little.

--
I am the Spirit within The Machine.
Re:Inevitable by nanodik · 2003-09-26 15:55 · Score: 1

Hmmmm, I don't know where to start with this you bring up so many good issues.

As far as use taxes, you are correct in that a state is limited to taxing within it's border. Use taxes are generally there to discourage consumers from traveling across state lines to purchase in low-taxed districts. However, your assertion that tax on internet sales runs afoul of the interstate commerce clause is not as clear-cut as you would make it. If someone orders an item online, has the transaction occurred in the district in which the internet server is, or in the district in which the consumer is? What if the item is shipped out of a warehouse in a third district? If the product is to be delivered via common carrier, is the transaction not being completed in the district to which it is shipped. When you travel across state lines to purchase an item and then bring it back home, it is clear that the transaction was made where you purchased the item. With the internet, things get a little more complicated.

Now, as far as the sales tax being a crummy way to tax, I disagree. Income taxes have to be the worst plague to visit the US in its entire history. Sales taxes, in as far as our current tax system goes, are the most efficient to collect. I'll go back to an earlier argument about Madison saying that the poor would keep the taxes under control for everyone. The fact is if you are taxing so much as to hurt the poor unduly, you are taxing too much. I never approach taxes from the point of maximizing revenues to the state, but rather minimizing it's destructive influences on the market. You have to keep in mind that wealth is created in the private sector and without wealth, the state is meaningless.

... clauses to allow certain goods to not be taxed. There is some question about the constitutionality of taxes with such provisions, as they are also clearly discriminatory from a business perspective. This could make for an interesting case in a few years

You are really stretching here. You say "constitutionality" but you fail to identify which constitution. Are you speaking of the US constitution or the state's constitution. Since there are 50 unique state constitutions, I cannot speak to the constitutionality of state sales tax laws, but I have seen nothing in the US constitution that would preclude a state from levying a tax on one type of good and not another. I can't imagine a federal court even agreeing to hear an argument on sales tax discrimination.

As for your second point about sales taxes being cyclical, I can't think of a tax that would be counter-cyclical to the business cycle. Even Keynsians thought that during downturns, gov'ts would have to run deficits to stimulate the economy

Anyway, I really, really don't like paying taxes. But I also like to see an even playing field when it comes to the gov't and I think here, local brick-and-mortars are getting the shaft.
Re:Inevitable by travler · 2003-09-26 18:56 · Score: 1

Honestly not sure if I am misreading you, if so I appologize. What you appear to be saying is that people who choose to use their land in different ways utilize state resources differently. You seem to be saying that people who use their land for some productive use such as factories/farming/retail utilize more state resources and should therefore be made to pay more somehow. Interesting concept but I think I simply disagree. I would say that the benificiaries of most state services are individual persons not business entities. I'm thinking of income re-distribution schemes such as welfare and things like education. Roads/Fire protection/Police are probably just about equally used per area of land no matter how it is being utilized. I would in fact say that the measure of how much land is occupied is a much better measure of how many state resources are being used vs how much product a company sells to the public.

Sales tax penalizes economic transactions.

Property tax penalizes owning property.

If I had to guess I would say that penalizing economic transactions would be a bad thing to do if you wanted a thriving economy which encourages people to make and sell things.

Taxing property will also be a drag on the economy (as all taxes are) but has the benifit of forcing the effective and efficient use of limited resources(land). Heck its even got the benifit of being naturaly progressive (rich people tend to own more property than poor) and universal (everyone in a sense pays property tax becouse it is factored into such things as rent).
Re:Inevitable by salesgeek · 2003-09-26 23:39 · Score: 1

What can you expect the states to do? They're fucked budget-wise and need to get back in black as soon as possible. This is just one of the lousy things that'll probably pass siimply because of the horendous budget situation the entire country is currently in.

First, the state of the budget in most states is like most of the 70's and 80's. That's why we had taxes go up so much in that period. Right now the crunch is simple: revenues are flat or declining and costs, especially healthcare insurance and programs, are increasing.

There are a few things I'd like to see tried before increasing taxes or creating new taxes:

How about:

A) Sell prime property held (and not used) for development.
B) Garage sale anyone?
C) Fix corrupt procurement processes
D) Fire the guy who pushes the button in the elevator at the statehouse.
E) Reform and make consistent property taxes.
F) Declare a moratorium on building new buildings.
G) Actually use the sunset clause on unnecessary programs.
H) Settle county v. state lawsuits out of court.
I) Consider toll roads.
J) Lower cost prisons - seriously most states spend more to house an inmate than i do to house/feed/trasport/educate four people and cat for a year.
K) Audit MEDICARE and other ENTITLEMENTS. And go for recovery from people who shouldn't be using the program.
L) Adopt real means testing for healthcare entitlements - perhaps using controlled assets. I've met to sell with six millionaires in the last week that are ON MEDICARE. All of them shelter their wealth using corporations/trusts. WTF?
M) Cut coverage from 100% covered, $500 deductable, $10 copay health insurance to something more in line with the private sector for state/local governement employees.
N) Audit school systems for fraud waste and abuse. Especially waste resulting from incredibly stupid lawsuits and incredibly stupid management decisions.
O) Hold state workers accountable when the fsck up a federal grant by not filing on time.

There's more, but at the end of the day, taxes are high enough, are paid mostly by the UPPER MIDDLE CLASS.

--
-- $G
Re:Inevitable by denisdekat · 2003-09-27 00:59 · Score: 1

not if you are selling hosting services ;) No shipping whatsoever. I am starting to feel that the entire hosting industry will flourish mostly outside the US as trade is not an issue, and neither are labor laws... Also, the US keeps getting more and more fascist... I read up the definition lately, fits us well :(

--
photoplankton

Matter of time by Chuck+Bucket · 2003-09-26 09:41 · Score: 3, Informative

I think it's only a matter of time before this occurs; there's just too much money at stake. As a consumer, I'm against it though.

CB

--
free ipod and free gmail!

Re:Matter of time by Takara · 2003-09-26 09:57 · Score: 1

Canada (or Provinces of Canada) has been charing sales tax for a while on items purchaced online, but it was never really an issue. You won't notice it after a while.
Re:Matter of time by madcow_ucsb · 2003-09-26 10:33 · Score: 1

I'm confused though - many things I buy online ALREADY add sales tax if they have a presence in CA like me. Did they not have to do this before?

Even my friend who plays middleman on ebay selling Dells and cell phones at horribly inflated prices charges sales tax and does, in fact, report it and pass it along to the state to avoid any trouble should he be audited (he owns a fair amount of business property, etc so it's a definite possiblity for him)
Re:Matter of time by NanoGator · 2003-09-26 11:09 · Score: 1

"I think it's only a matter of time before this occurs; there's just too much money at stake. As a consumer, I'm against it though."

I just hope it's a flat tax. Like I wanna deal with which state gets the tax.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Matter of time by lamery · 2003-09-26 12:16 · Score: 1

This only applies when you're buying online from your own provice.

Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 09:41 · Score: 0, Troll

This is all George Bush's fault. By cutting federal taxes and forcing states to spend more money by implementing the homeland security without properly funding it with federal dollars, what he has forced states to do is raise taxes to fix the deficit.

Thank you Mr. George W. Bush for ruining the 8 years of Clintons tax free internet, causing us to lose 3 million jobs and counting, ruining our relations with the UN, and causing my state and sales taxes to raise just so you can give a tax cut to the rich who werent even asking for it.

Oh and also thanks for hiking my tuition, causing my property taxes to go out, raising the crime rates, and last but not least thanks for wasting billions of dollars on Iraq which could be given to states.

So what will Mr. George Bush's response be? His response will be "TAX CUTS!"

We know federal tax cuts just solve everything.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:43 · Score: 0

Did you forget the internet bubble? It began to burst in 2000, while Clinton was still in office. State's have less revenue because they were expecting the stock market to keep climbing at the rate it was. They didn't plan for a "rainy day."
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by mcwop · 2003-09-26 09:50 · Score: 1

Yes, let's hike taxes on everything. That will solve all our problems. Remember, Bush I raised taxes in 1990, and federal spending went up every year as well as the deficit. Federal receipts went DOWN after the Bush I tax hikes. The luxury tax on boats severely hurt the boating industry. The top tax rate is still higher than when Bush I was in office.

--
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Bendebecker · 2003-09-26 09:51 · Score: 1

Actually recessions are more long term. If you want to know why we are in recession you have to look back 5-10 years. Who was president back then??? As to the tax cut, we haven't even felt its effects yet (we probably won't until some time next year at least - and it probably won't be good.)

--
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by squarooticus · 2003-09-26 09:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Can someone explain how this is "informative"? It looks to me more like "trolling": Bush's tax cuts have nothing to do with the states vastly overestimating their future revenue by planning on a the late 90's bubble never bursting.

Personally, I'd like to see the states look less for new taxes and new revenue and more for ways to cut their bloated budgets. Enumerate all the programs that were added since 1995, cut them all out of the budget, and then see how far into the hole you are!

--
[ home ]
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Richthofen80 · 2003-09-26 09:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or...
You could see that Mr. Bush is trying to stop the $pending $pree that states are on. Don't blame him for 'forcing' states to do anything. States have been relying on the federal tit for way too long.

States are refusing to accept that they must cut fat in their budgets in order to meet them. This means auditing the books and eliminating unnecessary services. Every penny of the 'surplus', i.e. the excess cash from federal/state taxes that happened during the internet bubble, should not have been spent. When you plan your budget on an economy that was continuously warned as overvalued, then shit your pants and refuse to roll back the increases when the economy finally re-balances itself, well, you have no right to complain.

Mr. Bush is not responsible for the economy. The economy is the results of millions of business transactions every day by businesses, individuals, and groups. It *generally* increases in the long run, with ebbs and flows in between. Planning on a good three or eight years of economy is just plain stupid. And that's what the states and governments did, and now their paying for it. Or not paying for it, as the case may be.

--
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by rajafarian · 2003-09-26 09:53 · Score: 1

... just so you can give a tax cut to the rich who werent even asking for it.

You don't think he got a few personal phone calls asking him to do so in return for donations to the Republican Party!
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by r_glen · 2003-09-26 09:53 · Score: 1

"Make no mistake... all those opposed to internet taxes are supporters of terrorism."
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:53 · Score: 0

You really are fucking stupid, aren't you? I bet you put your underwear on saying "yellow in front, brown in back".

You have tuition AND property taxes? For a student, that's doing pretty good.

The simple answer to why the states are in financial trouble is that when the economy was booming, the politicians passed spending programs to buy votes. When the economy tanked, they were caught with their pants down. BTW, the recession started while Clinton was still in office and if it hadn't been for W's tax cuts, it would still be with us. In case you don't keep up with economic news (and you apparently don't), the economy has turned around quite nicely now. Growth is predicted to be in excess of 4% this quarter.

I think the majority of Iraqis have a very different opinion of the war than you have. If the money had not been spent on the war, what right do you have to claim it, you fucking socialist?

I'm wasting my time with you.
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:54 · Score: 0

You are such a liberal prude. I'm sorry but the economy started to go downhill just before Bush stepped into office. Even had tree hugger been in office the economy would still be in the garbage due to 9/11. Get off the Bush Bashing! His actions with Iraq are way cool with me. I am glad someone finally had the balls to stand up for our country and take action than sits at his desk with his secretary on his pole. Bush is the bomb and has my vote and many others. I bet you could put all the blame on Bush for how the economy is in California too, right?
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by obsid1an · 2003-09-26 09:54 · Score: 1

Yea, blame Bush because local governments don't know how to manage their budgets. One program isn't the cause of the problems state governments are having. It's their lack of planning for a downturn in the economy. The states dug their own graves. Some states, like New Mexico, are doing great. While others, like California, are in chaos and debt.
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:56 · Score: 0

"Make no mistake... all those opposed to internet taxes are supporters of terrorism."

Well I guess I'm a terrorist then! There, I said it, you happy!?!?!?
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by christopher240240 · 2003-09-26 09:57 · Score: 1

And that would make the Bush I recession belong to...
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Snowspinner · 2003-09-26 09:59 · Score: 1

Informative????

What information is there in that post? I do not know more than I did before I read it.

I can see insightful more... except that I'm pretty sure Bush didn't increase your tuition personally... and, really, there's something odd about objecting to the idea of reducing taxes to make up for a tax on things bought on the internet. I mean... really... tax cuts are generally seen as a sensible response to tax increases, no?

I could go on to point out that the current economic downturn started in the Clinton administration...

Or I could pount out your odd sense of punctuation and of forms of address...

But instead I think I'll just be succinct.

Mod parent the fuck down.

--
Philip Sandifer's academic website
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by kidgenius · 2003-09-26 10:00 · Score: 1

Also, dont' forget to mention the whole September 11 thing in 2001 that sent our economy into a tailslide. Yeah...that was his fault. pffft
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by espo812 · 2003-09-26 10:01 · Score: 1

If you want to know why we are in recession you have to look back 5-10 years.
Economic cycle, this is Mr. Bendebecker. Mr. Bendebecker this is the economic cycle. You two should get acquainted.

--

espo
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 10:03 · Score: 1

How is my post trolling? Its the truth, anyone who reads it knows its the truth.

We were in a frigging surplus until Bush came around and just threw trillions of dollars in tax cuts out the window. Maybe if he had waited before rushing to cut taxes we would have had the money to fund all these wars and homeland security.

Personally, I'd like to see the states look less for new taxes and new revenue and more for ways to cut their bloated budgets. Enumerate all the programs that were added since 1995, cut them all out of the budget, and then see how far into the hole you are!

Oh please, you actually think a state thats been democratic for 10 or 20 years is going to instantly become republican and conservative over night? These things take years, you have to pay for the current bills before you can downsize. Look, unless you want states to lay off millions of employees all at once and make the unemployement numbers skyrocket, you as President would be better off just giving states money to fund their essential services while they cut slowly over the course of your 4 years in office.

The problem with Bush, he just cut taxes and then actually increased spending burdens on the state by starting the homeland security. Why didnt George W Bush bailout states after 911? He bailed out the airline industry over and over again, why not give a trillion dollars to help states and cancel the tax cut? He could have done this after 911 and we wouldnt even be talking about taxing the internet right now.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by antv · 2003-09-26 10:06 · Score: 1

Yes, let's hike taxes on everything. That will solve all our problems.
Wrong. What we absolutely need to decrease are sales taxes, since those discourage sales. Also, limit budget spending on unneeded thing like $87,000,000,000 extra on Iraq.

--
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Jhon · 2003-09-26 10:08 · Score: 1

I'll avoid your ridicules and baseless "Bush Bashing" and point out a severe error in your statement:
Thank you Mr. George W. Bush for ruining the 8 years of Clintons tax free internet
The error:

"Bush" hasn't done anything to "ruin 8 years of Clintons tax free internet". First, The internet wasn't Clintons. Second, if you RTFA and passed your high school civics class, you'd see that the states are asking CONGRESS who's constitutional role involves taxes and NOT the President's.

Summary:

Congress != President
Executive Branch != Levy Taxes
State Government != Federal Government
You == ill-informed
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by eljasbo · 2003-09-26 10:09 · Score: 1

I know this is way off topic of the original subject and will probably be trolled down, but i just had to respond to the troll parent. IMO, the artifical inflation of stock prices during the late 90's caused by the mass amounts of corporate financial scandal partially caused the current condition of the economy now. The economy was on a downslide before bush took office. I suppose that was Bush's fault also even though he was not in office yet. Probably all the trouble california got in with davis is somehow also Bush's fault in your mind. Add acts of war by terrorists and what do you expect? Do you think there is a way to have a good economy with all of this? He is trying hard and if you have a better plan id like to hear it. I do not consider Dean's 'plan' where we become a pacifist nation despite hostilites around the world an option either. We are at war now. We had to rebuild our defenses to fight this war because clinton downsized the military so much and made us vulnerable. Economic changes dont happen overnight. Especially with war going on. Policys take more than a couple of years before their effect is fully realized on the economy. Enough of my rant.
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:10 · Score: 0

Exactly. Many economists liken "managing" the economy to steering a huge barge at sea: once it is moving in one direction, it takes time to change directions after you spin the wheel. A Democrat gets elected during a great economy, messes it up, but gets out before their changes start to take effect. A Republican steps in, tries to fix the problems, but takes the blame for the terrible economy, while their changes take effect in time to make the next Democrat look good. For example, the "tech bubble" burst around the changeover from Clinton to Bush, and if it was affected by economic policies at all, they were Clinton's. Yet, Bush takes the blame for the horrific economy.
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by pla · 2003-09-26 10:14 · Score: 1

States have been relying on the federal tit for way too long.

"Relying on the federal tit"... Interesting way of looking at it.

Tell me, proportionately, how much of your yearly taxes go to the federal government, compared with how much goes to your home state?

For me, I recall a figure somewhere around 10:1 for my last filing.

So, the federal government gets 10 times as much as the individual states, yet what do they do? Almost nothing. The military (how does that benefit me?), occasional distaster relief (I have the common sense to live somewhere that doesn't have volcanos, earthquakes, yearly floods and/or droughts, or hurricanes), a bit of highly restrictive (and racially discriminatory against whites) academic funding? Really... All the rest of those great federal programs we hear about eventually fall to the states to implement.

So how do the states fund all these great (and expensive) programs? Not from the paltry share of income taxes they recieve. No, they fund them from the money the federal government gives back to the states (which came from people in those states in the first place), which those states then must use on federal programs that may or may not have any relevance to that particular state.

I totally agree the states should lay off the federal tit... With one qualifier - We should completely invert the ratio of where our taxes go. Then we can validly complain when the states go begging the fed for money. As it stands now, they have no choice.

Mr. Bush is not responsible for the economy.

BS. He's run every company he had involvement with into the ground, and has continued that trend on the level of the entire United States. Yeah, normally you can blame recessions on the previous president - But in this case, looking at both Clinton's success and Bush's history of failure, I'd say "no way". Bush singlehandedly took us from the best economic conditions in half a century, to the worst, in a mere 3 years.
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by phantomlord · 2003-09-26 10:15 · Score: 1

By cutting federal taxes and forcing states to spend more money by implementing the homeland security without properly funding it with federal dollars, what he has forced states to do is raise taxes to fix the deficit.
My mortgage went up $70 a month this year... I adjust by reducing my discretionary spending since I know I only have a certain amount of income per month. Gasp! The government should have to pay for the critical stuff before they waste money on entitlements and pork? There's no fluff spending that could be cut to reduce the deficits?
George W. Bush for ruining the 8 years of Clintons tax free internet, causing us to lose 3 million jobs and counting, ruining our relations with the UN, and causing my state and sales taxes to raise just so you can give a tax cut to the rich
The economy was faltering long before Clinton left office. Alan Greenspan recognized it in 1999 (irrational exuberance) and started preparing for a soft landing. It officially began tanking in the spring of 2000 (remember all the dems whining about how GWB was trying to talk down the economy?). Jobs get lost when the economy contracts... and it started before GWB took office. Had he NOT cut taxes, even more jobs would have been lost (had the states not increased taxes and instead, cut spending, we'd be going along at a pretty healthy clip again).
Now... as for the UN, most of the rest of the world has had a distaste for the US for quite some time, especially Europe (since the fall of the Soviet Empire) and the third world dictators out there. The UN removed the US from the Human Rights Committee (but found a place for the likes of Libya, Syria and Sudan). In August of 2001, the UN held a onference to "denounce" racism in Durbin, South Africa which basically turned into a demand for the US to pay reparations for slavery instead of denouncing Sudan (you know, one of those countries on the Human Rights Committee) for STILL practicing slavery. The UN's definition of human rights includes government funded abortions on demand for any woman who wants them which is very counter to the US ideas on abortion (only the most pro-abortion minority support that stance). The UN's primary mission was to promote diplomacy, not to become yet another level of government bureaucracy and means for dictatorial regimes like China to reject means of achieving peace in places like North Korea.

--
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Bull999999 · 2003-09-26 10:19 · Score: 1

Didn't Davis (Dem, Gov. of CA) himself said you can't blame one person for the economy?

And why are Europe and Asia experiencing bad economy as well?

--
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:23 · Score: 0

Nice republican theory to protect bush. "Clinton was enjoying a good economy because of Regan" "GW Bush is in recession because of Clinton"
The economy is slow, but not THAT slow. It's the guy behind the desk who is responsible. And that is coming from a profesional economist.
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Jhon · 2003-09-26 10:37 · Score: 1

Bush singlehandedly took us from the best economic conditions in half a century, to the worst, in a mere 3 years.
That statement just flys in the face of many reports which contradict you:
By late summer, the first rebate checks were putting money in consumers' pockets. Many rebate checks arrived in the weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The economy started growing in late fall --- and has grown since.

"At the very least, the Bush tax cuts [in 2001] helped lift the economy out of recession modestly and countered the effect of the terror attacks," said economist William Beach, director of the center for data analysis at the Heritage Foundation.
And that was 9 MONTHS after he took office.

You sir (or madam) are a demagog -- and an ignorant (or deliberately obtuse) one at that.
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:57 · Score: 0

This is all George Bush's fault. By cutting federal taxes and forcing states to spend more money by implementing the homeland security without properly funding it with federal dollars, what he has forced states to do is raise taxes to fix the deficit.
The states have applied to the fed for the funds. Congress has not appropriated the funds they voted for. Congress does this all the time. The budget is spent in two steps: The amounts are determined and mandated (happens all the time) and then the actuall funds are released separate from the mandate (does not always happen). Homeland security funds have not been released by Congress!
Thank you Mr. George W. Bush for ruining the 8 years of Clintons tax free internet, causing us to lose 3 million jobs and counting, ruining our relations with the UN, and causing my state and sales taxes to raise just so you can give a tax cut to the rich who werent even asking for it.
Yep, it's all his fault. We know that we actually live in a dictatorship form of government and the Congress is just a rubber stamp of everything the Dictator (aka President) wants.
We also know that what the "President" does will affect the economy instantly! That in only two years of being in power he can change the direction of the largest economic system the world has ever known. Long term trends and decade old actions have nothing to do with it because the economy of the US and the world can change on a dime! It must be Bush's (or insert President's name here) fault.
Oh and also thanks for hiking my tuition,
Bush hiked your tuition? Nonsense! Tuition rates have been going up many times faster than inflation because of supply and demand. Government and the schools participate in a cycle of price escalation that neither can or want to stop. It goes like this:
Gov: "Tuition is too high, make grants and loans easier to get."
People: "Money for college is easier to get. Look at all the help available. I think I'll go to school!" (demand increases)
School: "Look at all the people applying for entrance! We are good! We can charge more because we are worth more, based on the higher demand. And, we have to expand to handle all of these students."
Gov: "Tuition is too high, make grants and loans easier to get."
[repeat]
Econnomics 101. Supply and Demand. Or you haven't taken that class yet?
causing my property taxes to go out,
In most places property taxe rates are controlled at the municipal level and are mostly dedicated to funding public k-12 education. Did you know that when our local district was looking to cut back spending this year, they only had 17% of the total that they could adjust at all? The other 83% were federal and state mandated spending that they COULD NOT TOUCH OR CHANGE. The state and federal legistatures are at fault there. Districts have no choice but to increase taxes to pay for the mandates. Mandates that have been in place LONG before Bush was president!
raising the crime rates,
What country do you live in? The latest crime statistics recently released show crime dropping, as it has been for several years now.
and last but not least thanks for wasting billions of dollars on Iraq which could be given to states.
74% of the Iraqis consider themselves better off now than they were before the war. Torture chambers, vigilanties and death camps are all closed down. What price should we pay to save all those lives? You really want to call the lives improved and saved as "wasted" money? The fact that we are able to spend this much shows how well off we really are.
So what will Mr. George Bush's response be? His response will be "TAX CUTS!"
We know federal tax cuts just solve everything.
No one is stopping you from sending in more money. If you don't want tax cuts, the next time you benefit from one, send the check back! I for one want every person that can to get and keep as much of their own money to spend as they see fit. The bloated pig that we have for a government doesn't need any more. I would rather do for myself than live under the fantasy that government knows best!
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by pla · 2003-09-26 11:22 · Score: 1

That statement just flys in the face of many reports which contradict you:

And your quote flies in the face of reality, regardless of where it came from.

Heh... Yeah, those pathetic little $300 checks made all the difference in the world, thus the continuing recession. So what did people do with them? Let's check the Consumer Confidence Index over the course of Bush's presidency. Here, try these:
Historical values in chart form, and
Current value, with textual elaboration.

Not pretty. And although you can blame 9/11 for a drastic dip at the beginning of Bush's presidency, notice it went back up, yet now lingers at a level barely even shown on the chart at the first link.

So what effect did Bush's tax cuts have on the economy? People squirreled them away for fear of further fiscal irresponsibility by the president.

You sir (or madam) are a demagog -- and an ignorant (or deliberately obtuse) one at that.

Though I thank you for the compliment (What exactly do I lead, to qualify as a demagogue?), I think you have it wrong. I simply call a spade, a spade. Bush has destroyed this country, both economically (as with every business enterprise he has ever had involvement with), and in terms of foreign relations, and I see no reason not to "credit" him for his deeds.
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 11:25 · Score: 0

It was. If Bush hadn't been horrifically lax in his handling of national security, 9/11 would have failed.
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by pla · 2003-09-26 11:26 · Score: 1

Didn't Davis (Dem, Gov. of CA) himself said you can't blame one person for the economy?

Certainly a bastion of good leadership there...

And why are Europe and Asia experiencing bad economy as well?

If I supply all your "toaster strudels", and you supply all my "pop tarts", in a one-to-one trade, then if one of us dries up, the other suffers as well. Granted, international trade has a LOT more complexity than that, but I think the idea pretty much sums it up - If the US has a recession, all its major trade parters will suffer as a consequence.
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 12:20 · Score: 1

Who was President when it happened? Who was responsible for our security? OF course its George Bush's fault, his prime responsibility as President is to defend our country's national security.

Bush had his guard down and we were attacked, and the trillion dollar tax cut really was a stupid idea because we didnt even have the money to fall back on thanks to his stupidity.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by mcwop · 2003-09-26 12:33 · Score: 1

I was being sarcastic, while trying to illustrate that raising taxes does not guarentee more tax receipts.

--
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Jhon · 2003-09-26 13:03 · Score: 1

Sigh...

You provide a link to a BLOG with commentary (read OPINION) which ALSO disagrees with your previous statements:
Notice when the decline started. It started in the last several months of the Clinton Administration.
...
Perhaps we can dispense with the silly notion that Bush was solely responsible for the recession. It sure looks to me like the seeds of the recession were planted prior to his even being in office.
You THEN provide a link to a COMSUMER CONFIDENCE SURVEY which is based on OPINION -- again from your cited links:
The Consumer Confidence Survey is based on a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. households.
Those numbers are based on household OPINIONS. Maybe you should read the methodology it uses. All it shows is how people FEEL -- which may indicate how people will SPEND. It shows nothing with regards to actual economic indicators.

Maybe you should try and use some reason instead of being blinded by some silly Bush-hatred. Do you blame Bush if you get a zit on your nose before a date?
What exactly do I lead, to qualify as a demagogue?
You are acting as a pundent -- an informed source -- that qualfies as a "leader". You are attempting to make use of popular myths and lies to gain power for your party. That qualifies you as a demagog.
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by mandolin · 2003-09-26 15:20 · Score: 1

Mr. Bush is not responsible for the economy.
You're correct in that the executive office exerts much more power (relatively) over foreign relations than it does over domestic issues. The economy is usually in the hands of our Congress, although the prez usually gets the blame/credit for it, come election time.
Doing my best to bite my tongue on the foreign relations bit..
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 19:28 · Score: 0

You are attempting to make use of popular myths and lies to gain power for your party.

Umm.. who ever mentioned a party in this thread (other than yourself)?

republicans suck, democrats suck, what else is new..
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 19:30 · Score: 0

Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism

I don't see what reason has to do with free market capitalism.

Free market capitalism has to be one of the most inefficient and inequitable economies humans have ever dreamt up. I am always utterly astonished at the lengths people will go to avoid the truth: you're like a whore with her eyes wrenched shut murmuring "it's not happening, it's not happening."

Wake up, Ludd.
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by CrazyDuke · 2003-09-26 20:45 · Score: 1

" Or...
You could see that Mr. Bush is trying to stop the $pending $pree that states are on. Don't blame him for 'forcing' states to do anything. States have been relying on the federal tit for way too long."

What? By pissing away all of it an then some for them? Huh? Another 87 billion to fund Dick Cheney and their "campain donation" buddies? Rebuild Iraq? All we've done is entrench an occupation force and secured an exportation route for free oil for our oil companies. And, yet, gas prices have still gone back up to record levels. Kinda like all we did in Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? All we've done there is set up a cheap puppet government, an occupation force, and built an oil pipeline we've wanted for years. The opium drug lords run that country now, with the Taliban trying to get it back.

And speaking about fat budgets, at least the states don't have to pay over 20% of their income to debt intrest. You know, that national debt thing? That money didn't just come from thin air. One thing I'll give the 'crats, at least we didn't get the overwelming majority of that from them. Oh, and before the 87 extra billion, W had signed a law granting him and his friends up in congress to add another 1 trillion to the national debt. And giving that they are asking for more now, I take it thats been sucked up.

"Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism"

Yeah, its too bad the current set of crooks in D.C. seem to be hell bent on making that "Fraud, corporate welfare, and corporatism."

America, land of the free, as in buy 2 branches, get one free.

That's something that has to piss other countries off, the constant reference of one country on the North American continent as all of "America", or at least the only part of it that matters. :P

--
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Jhon · 2003-09-27 03:07 · Score: 1

Umm.. who ever mentioned a party in this thread (other than yourself)?
This thread has hammered Bush and praised Clinton... the 'parties' involved is certainly implied.
republicans suck, democrats suck, what else is new..
You'll get no argument from me there.
Re:Please thank Mr. George W Bush! by Jhon · 2003-09-27 03:19 · Score: 1

Who was President when it happened?
George W. Bush.
Who was responsible for our security?
William Jefferson Clinton.

Why Clinton? Under his watch, an overt effort to emasculate our intellegence gathering apparatus was engaged. Look up information regarding The Torricelli Principle -- application of which couldn't have been possible without whitehouse approval. Additionally, Clinton's total lack of response (treating it like a crime rather than an act of war) to an obvious terrorist attack on the WTC back in 1993 sent a clear message to terrorists that further attacks were quite possible. Shall we talk about the lack of responce to the USS Cole?
Bush had his guard down and we were attacked
Correction: Bush had no or little "guard" to be down -- thanks to Clinton.

Oh my! by cliffy2000 · 2003-09-26 09:41 · Score: 1, Funny

The government wants to TAX us more? I'm deeply shocked!
(I'm becoming more and more Libertarian by the day, I tell you.)

Re:Oh my! by geekoid · 2003-09-26 09:49 · Score: 1

if you RTFA, you would relize that is not true. They want to collect what they are already taxing us.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Oh my! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:13 · Score: 0

Why should my money go help build schools, roads, and bridges? Screw that.

Last post!! by piecewise · 2003-09-26 09:41 · Score: 0

Ha!! Last post!

Whoa.. wait... what's happening? I'm the FIRST post?

So, okay, here's the deal. I don't think there's anything wrong with net taxes. It should just force companies to be more competetive with Internet pricing -- the same Internet that helps productivity and lowers the cost of making many of their products to begin with.

No net taxes were about building infrastructure -- we're beyond that today.

--
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!

Re:Last post!! by piecewise · 2003-09-26 09:50 · Score: 1

man... i wasn't the first or the last post..
I just suck.

--
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Re:Last post!! by NineNine · 2003-09-26 11:11 · Score: 1

That's bullshit. Internet stores don't have storefronts that add to communities. Just big, nasty warehouses and callcenters in India. I personally can't imagine a country with nothing but houses and warehouses. I don't cry over the potential loss of big box stores (I don't go in any, and there aren't many in my area), but the small shops? That would suck.

Sales tax will kill ecommerce by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Amazon.com is crazy to even consider voluntarily collecting sales taxes for online purchases. That would negate the reason I purchase most of my expensive >= $100 goods online. Since many companies now offer free shipping for >= $50 purchases it typically saves me 10% or more compared to what I would pay at the local store. Start taxing online sales and I would not bother purchasing from Amazon or most other online companies. Of course, states would love to get their grubby little hands on my wallet, but they always do.

Yes, I know one is supposed to declare those purchases on your state's income tax form but I prefer to chuckle and enjoy the thought of screwing the state even if only a little. I am tired of taxes, taxes, taxes and more taxes on everything and anything. Pretty soon they will tax the fact one exhales CO2.

It is no secret state budgest have been in the hole for a number of years. But guess what? That is the fault of the states for being irresponsible. Now they want to dip further into the wallets of their citizens because they were spending money in the 90s as if the Roaring 20s were back in style. Here is a simple solution for all those states who want to put a tax on everything: Spend less money. Yep, you heard me right. If I go into debt, I don't go to my employer and demand more money -- I cut back on my expenses. No matter the rhetoric of the tax and spend supporters, its clear that most people want to keep their money instead of having the state spend it for them. We've seen this everywhere from the most conservative backward regions in the South to the mythically liberal Californians.

Re:Sales tax will kill ecommerce by momerath2003 · 2003-09-26 10:27 · Score: 1

Pretty soon they will tax the fact one exhales CO2.

From the Beatles' song Taxman

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.

(hmm, I'm probably infringing on someone's copyright by posting this here; whoops!

--
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.

Internet Taxes = Death of Internet Profits by blcamp · 2003-09-26 09:42 · Score: 1

What they are really pressing for, but don't realize, is a crippling of e-commerce. I wonder what Jeff Bezos has to say about this.

--
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher

Re:Internet Taxes = Death of Internet Profits by stratjakt · 2003-09-26 09:44 · Score: 1

I have already patented the process of crippling e-commerce through patents.

Sincerely yours,
Jeff Bezos

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Internet Taxes = Death of Internet Profits by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:50 · Score: 0

I don't like this idea

-- Jeff Bezos

I don't know about anyone else by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:42 · Score: 1, Interesting

One of the main reasons I buy goods on the internet is that I don't want my state to recieve sales taxes. They did nothing to deserve that money. The state divisions at this point are arbitrary, meaningless, and unhelpful. EVERYTHING particularly interesting happens at either the national or the local level.

Re:I don't know about anyone else by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:32 · Score: 0

You don't want your state to receive sales taxes? But if your state receives no taxes, how will things like road repair be paid for? The list of benefits that taxes make possible is huge. Sure, we all feel overtaxed, and corruption is apparently rampant, but none of us would be where we are without them.

They did nothing to deserve that money? I thought tax money was used to help pay for things like the power lines you use to power your computer, the phone lines carrying your online intent to purchase said items, and so on.
Re:I don't know about anyone else by grammaticaster · 2003-09-26 10:45 · Score: 1

what college did you go to? was it perhaps ... a state school? what about primary and secondary school? did you go a public school? do you employ or interact with anybody who learned to read because the state paid for them to?

do you ever drive? are you represented by some sort of state official? do you feel safer because people can be arrested and put in jail for breaking the law?

don't claim that your state did nothing to earn your tax money, troll.
Re:I don't know about anyone else by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 11:44 · Score: 0

what college did you go to? was it perhaps ... a state school?

I am going to a state school. A state school of a state in which I am not the resident. Despite paying sales tax on locally bought items, and income tax, for the duration of my stay here, I am paying an order of magnitude more to go here than someone who just happened to have been a resident of the state before they started going to this school. The logic behind this is that the state income and sales taxes subsidise the school. This logic made marginally more sense before two years ago, when the state cut the school's funding down to practically nothing. Now the school is being primarily supported by the majority, out-of-state students.

are you represented by some sort of state official?

Nope. Being registered as an out-of-state voter, and thus unable to vote here, I am not represented in an official capacity by any member of this state.

Way to go! by El · 2003-09-26 09:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you want to force companies to relocate to a state that doesn't charge sales taxes on internet purchases, this is the way to go! I hope that most of the states pass this, then all the companies will relocate to Oregon, where we have no sales tax, period.

--

"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

Re:Way to go! by geekoid · 2003-09-26 09:52 · Score: 1

Have you not been paying attention? we will have a surcharge, which amounts to the same thing.

Oh, and from my communications to veries Oregon reps., there will be a sales taxs. the only real question is what should the 9% state income tax be lowered to?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Way to go! by hchaos · 2003-09-26 09:52 · Score: 1

If you want to force companies to relocate to a state that doesn't charge sales taxes on internet purchases, this is the way to go! I hope that most of the states pass this, then all the companies will relocate to Oregon, where we have no sales tax, period.
Since sales taxes are a tax on the BUYER, the sales taxes are not collectable by the state that the company is in, but by the state that the buyer is in.
Re:Way to go! by twoslice · 2003-09-26 09:55 · Score: 1

but by the state that the buyer is in.
I am in an inebriated state - would I be subject to being taxed???

--

From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
Re:Way to go! by Zeelan · 2003-09-26 09:59 · Score: 1

No sales tax right now but if I remember right they keep putting it back on the ballot over and over again... every five years or so. The lastest tactic was to try and get the legislator to install a sales tax and 'not' ask the people about it again. Then again the Oreagon Citizans alliance... (For the most part religious nuts) Would happily get a petision in by the next ellection to overturn such a rule and toss anyone that voted for it into the clink. Anyway, here is for keeping Oregon Sales Tax free. (My own personal view on sales tax is that in the end it is a flawed form of taxation.)
Re:Way to go! by MacTenchi · 2003-09-26 10:03 · Score: 1

Moving the company may not help. Currently it's the customer's state that dictates the sales tax, so I imagine that there's just no way around it.
Re:Way to go! by JoeBuck · 2003-09-26 10:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

Oregon is going to have to raise more money somehow. Already they've had to resort to closing schools three weeks early, and I suspect that the amount of dererred maintainance of critical infrastructure has reached dangerous levels.
Also, Oregon has relatively high property and income taxes, which any companies moving there will have to pay. Of course, there's the trick of living in Washington State (no state income tax) and shopping in Oregon, thus freeloading on the other citizens of two states.
Re:Way to go! by Poeir · 2003-09-26 10:10 · Score: 1

I'm sure if you ask any legislator, once the sales tax is in place, the 9% state income tax should be lowered to 9%.

--
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
Re:Way to go! by trompete · 2003-09-26 10:29 · Score: 1

We have this between South Dakota and Minnesota: South Dakotans don't pay income taxes, but their sales taxes are high, so they come across the border and spend their money in Minnesota. I guess they're the ones getting the deal, but if you've seen South Dakota before, all they have to go home to is some cows and lots of empty land.

--
More than enough BS
Re:Way to go! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:58 · Score: 0

Yes, but a cow will keep you warm on a cold night much better than a lack of sales taxes will! (And with all that empty land, you won't get caught!)

-- South Dakota farm boy
Re:Way to go! by TykeClone · 2003-09-26 11:08 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure that most of them would, in fact, like to see it lowered by -1% to bring it "down" to 10%

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Re:Way to go! by TykeClone · 2003-09-26 11:11 · Score: 1

Minnesota has very high sales taxes too! How bad are they in South Dakota? Iowa is trying to work its way up to the level of taxation in Minnesota.

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Re:Way to go! by El · 2003-09-26 11:34 · Score: 1

Great! For a small fee, I'd be happy to let people use my address for shipping, thus avoiding the sales tax, then reship it to you!

--
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Re:Way to go! by mOdQuArK! · 2003-09-26 11:35 · Score: 1

There will be no sales tax in Oregon. No way, no how. The only way the Oregon public will _ever_ let it happen, will be if they get rid of one of the other taxes (income or property) at the exact same time. Not "reduce" - get rid of. And this might be impossible, since the Oregon Constitution disallows more than one issue on the same measure at the same time.

Oregon legislators have tried to pass a sales tax at least 8 times in Oregon history, and such measures have always been overwhelmingly shot down.

No matter what rate the legislature says they'll set it at, or how many exceptions there are, the Oregon public (with good reason) just doesn't trust them to keep it low after they've got such a tax. It'll be a cold day in hell before Oregonians (of any party, or independents) allow a sales tax measure to pass, no matter how bad the budget is.
Re:Way to go! by trompete · 2003-09-26 11:46 · Score: 1

You caught me. I'm actually from St. Paul, 200 miles from the border. My college girlfriend's parents just live on the border. I am kept warm by the emissions of the Twin Cities and its 3,000,000 inhabitants.
I read once that you guys have nine cows for every person! That's a lot of beef! Did you have to sell off a lot of cows during the drought this year?

--
More than enough BS
Re:Way to go! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 21:01 · Score: 0

Also, Oregon has relatively high property and income taxes, which any companies moving there will have to pay. Of course, there's the trick of living in Washington State (no state income tax) and shopping in Oregon, thus freeloading on the other citizens of two states.

You're taxed based on where you work, not where you live. If I could save income tax by living in Washington, I'd move there in a second (I live in Oregon and work there).

Unfair by ciroknight · 2003-09-26 09:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't believe their should be taxes on things sold on the internet.. that's one of the only advantages the internet has (other than shopping from home). If taxes were there, I would imagine most internet stores would have to close.. thing's would just be too expensive to buy online, then have shipped to your house. Then you run into problems.. think of Amazon.com. Which state gets the taxes? Is it a federal tax? What about people buying things internationally, will they be taxed too?

No, I just believe it isn't time for internet sales taxes. Our economy is hurt enough, we don't need extra taxes on one of the best performing markets. State taxes are bad enough (and I say this hailing from Kentucky.. 6% isn't that bad.. but being a college student, every penny counts.....)

--
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush

Re:Unfair by Keiko+Sakaguchi · 2003-09-26 10:07 · Score: 1

I do not think a net sales tax would work either but what about a sort of usage tax that would be added the cost of your isp charges?
Re:Unfair by gfody · 2003-09-26 10:13 · Score: 1

I have been charged sales tax on some online stores. What gives? Have I been paying stupid-tax?

--

bite my glorious golden ass.
Re:Unfair by GrenDel+Fuego · 2003-09-26 10:17 · Score: 1

As the article states, 45 states currently require that taxes be collected when a resident of that state purchases an item online.

The problem that they're trying to deal with here is that they have no way to force internet retailers to collect those taxes unless they are based in that state.

So if a MA resident buys something online from a company based in WA, the company in WA is required to collect taxes, but MA cannot do anything if they do not.
Re:Unfair by pavon · 2003-09-26 10:21 · Score: 1

Now I'm not excited about the prospect of online taxes, but how is it unfair? If anything, the current situation is unfair to brick-and-mortor stores that do have to charge taxes on their products.
Re:Unfair by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:32 · Score: 0

Your right. We should get rid of the sales tax for brick and mortar stores, too.

In my defense, I buy on the internet what I can't by locally, though in an isolated community like Juneau, Alaska, that is a lot.
Re:Unfair by bigdavex · 2003-09-26 10:42 · Score: 1

If taxes were there, I would imagine most internet stores would have to close.. thing's would just be too expensive to buy online, then have shipped to your house.

They don't have a inalienable right to make money. Remember Spam? Telemarketting? RIAA? Bashing people on the head and taking their stuff? If a particular business model doesn't work and the market kills it, then the market is not broken. The business model is. Kill the business model, not the fair market.

Which state gets the taxes? Is it a federal tax? What about people buying things internationally, will they be taxed too?

Now you're talking. States don't have this authority.

--
-Dave
Re:Unfair by soft_guy · 2003-09-26 11:14 · Score: 1

This is silly.

The sales tax amazon would collect goes to the state where the buyer lives.

This would not "kill most internet businesses". If you buy something from Amazon and live in Washington state, you pay Washington state sales tax on it *right now*. I live in Washington. Does this stop me from buying from Amazon? No. Not if they are the only store that has what I want. On the other hand, if I can find the book I want at Borders, why should I wait a week and pay shipping since I have to pay taxes anyway?

If you buy something from Apple's online store, they probably collect sales tax on it. At least every time I do, they want to know what *county* I live in so they can pay the right tax. Does this stop me from buying from their store? No. However, if I can get the same thing cheaper elsewhere I do. In fact, I bought my daughter an iBook recently from Frys in Wilsonville, OR so I wouldn't have to pay tax on it. If I hadn't been down here anyway, I wouldn't have bothered because it wouldn't have been worth the drive from Seattle just for that, but I was in Oregon anyway on business.

Yes, I do pay attention to the cost of the tax, but no I don't let it get in the way of getting something I need.

One way or the other we need to balance the state budget. I find it amusing that a whole bunch of people on Slashdot think every state should cut its spending. Half the people on here probably were on unemployment at least sometime in the past two years. (Thank God I narrowly avoided that when my company went under! I got another job right away by pure luck.)

The taxes we pay go to take care of our public infrastructure, to educate our children, and to take care of each other when something bad happens (like unemployment!). I'm against the government being wasteful too. Maybe we should stop power washing the streets and, yes, we probably shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq, and we could probably save some money in some other areas. However, when my neighbors (i.e. my physical neighbors, but also you reading this) loose jobs through no fault of your own, I want unemployment to be there to help you get back on your feet. If you get in an accident and lose your eyesight, I want you to be taken care of without having to worry about being tossed into the street.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Re:Unfair by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 11:33 · Score: 0

"They don't have a inalienable right to make money."

No, but if you drive more businesses to the wall, then you're making worse the problem you're trying to fix.

People whose businesses go to the wall generally don't pay a lot of tax, and generally don't employ many people, you see.
Re:Unfair by bigdavex · 2003-09-26 12:34 · Score: 1

People whose businesses go to the wall generally don't pay a lot of tax, and generally don't employ many people, you see.

Ok, 2 points.

One, if the people aren't creating value, then they society should encourage them to do something else that does create value.

Two, do you really think people will buy less stuff, or will that just buy it from brick & mortar stores?

--
-Dave

Amazon may support the sales tax by andy1307 · 2003-09-26 09:43 · Score: 1

The only good thing i see here is for states to simplify their tax laws for ALL businesses.

Internet Sales Tax May Get Amazon.com's Support

The legislation would put the federal government's stamp of approval on a state-led effort to require online retailers to apply sales taxes to nearly all of their transactions. In return, states would simplify their complex tax laws to make collecting taxes easier for Internet businesses.

hm.... by frodo+from+middle+ea · 2003-09-26 09:43 · Score: 1

That would be the final nail in to coffin of the dot-com era survivors

--
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".

Re:First Post by alex_ant · 2003-09-26 09:43 · Score: 0, Troll

+5 insightful

And what about mail-order? by Atario · 2003-09-26 09:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Mail-order businesses have avoided cross-state sales taxes forever and a day, and no one makes a peep. Start taking the orders via 'net instead of via phone, and suddenly it's "me too" field day time for states? Feh. They can all bite me.

--
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt

Re:And what about mail-order? by Zendar · 2003-09-26 09:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Before the Internet, did you purchase PC parts from Computer Shopper or other mail order companies? Internet orders are probably 100x that of what mail order companies have been doing. It's easy and convienent.
Re:And what about mail-order? by TWX · 2003-09-26 10:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, if they start taxing internet-based purchases, I'll just use the Internet to find a vendor, and I'll start purchasing through them by mail instead of by phone or internet.

I personally don't give a shit if it's by email, web, phone, mail, smoke signals, shortwave radio, or whatnot. As long as it's interstate, it shouldn't be taxed by a state.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:And what about mail-order? by ComputerSlicer23 · 2003-09-26 10:04 · Score: 4, Informative

No, they haven't avoided those taxes. It is the responsiblity of the purchaser to pay the sales tax in their home state. It is not a liability of the business. A friend of mine's step father worked in the State gov't for the tax collections. At least in a the state of Nebraska, you are supposed to drive down to the local tax collector (possible it's only in the state capital), and file the mail order items value, and pay the sales taxes on it. I also believe that according the the current law, internet sales aren't taxed even when the buyer and the seller are in the same state.
He said his Mom always paid the taxes, just to avoid a scandal because it was her husband's job to enforce that law. In the end, they end up collecting what is given to them, but the prospect of collecting that money is more expensive most of the time, then the total value of the money collected.
I've got not issues with the gov't collecting taxes. No real issues with the gov't collecting taxes on Internet sales. I've got some issues with them attempting to regulate VoIP. I think that's wrong on so many levels (if you are going to do that, tax by the byte/packet, it's just data at that point VoIP isn't special on the internet, however, that's for a different rant).
When money moves around, the gov't wants a piece of it (they figure if you are spending money, you can afford to give some of it to the gov't, and generally they try and not tax neccessities, hence no taxes on food). The gov't has to aquire revenue to provide the services it does. The gov't doesn't need to provide a lot of things it does. So I don't think they truly need the revenue. However, if they decided to tax it, I've got no problem with that in particular. I do have a problem with them never cutting back services during lean years, and never saving money during the boom years. When they expand gov't services during the boom years, and then try continue will all the same services during the lean years, that's a problem. They needed to be either, returning the money to the citizens, or they needed to be saving it away.
I'm curious to see what will happen if the real estate market ever collapses, that'll directly affect revenue of the state gov't, in property taxes. That'll be a serious problem around here.
Kirby
Re:And what about mail-order? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:17 · Score: 0

Well if its going to cost me an extra 5% to buy the same thing from the same vendor online, I might just fax or mail my order.
Re:And what about mail-order? by the+gnat · 2003-09-26 10:20 · Score: 1

I've heard that in some states (CT, maybe? I used to live there) you have to pay taxes on any car you buy out-of-state. So, if you buy your car in a state that doesn't have sales tax, when you get to your home state which does, you need to pay the local sales tax on your car. I'm not sure about the details, but it has the ring of truth.
Re:And what about mail-order? by forevermore · 2003-09-26 10:39 · Score: 2, Informative

It is the responsiblity of the purchaser to pay the sales tax in their home state.
Actually, that changes on a state-to-state basis. And also depends on whether or not the purchasee is in the same state as the purchaser. If your business has a physical presence in WA, and you sell something to a customer who receives it (shipped to, or picked up in-store) in WA, then you as the company are responsible for collecting and paying the sales tax on that item. Thus, when I order from Amazon (located about 15 minutes from my house), I pay sales tax. When I buy from buy.com (located in CA), I don't. Not only that, but when I buy from Amazon, I also have to pay the extra .8% or so of sales tax that the county tacks on.
What these states want to do is set it up so that if my company ships something to FL or TX or CA or wherever, we'd have to collect the sales tax for that shipping address, and then find some way to get that tax to the appropriate state. It's a HUGE hassle, since we'd have to know all of the various tax percentages for that state (and its counties), and know when they change. The article says that the states are trying to make this easier/simpler, but it'll still be a huge hassle. This is why the federal goverment has been trying to get an "internet tax" passed, that would provide one sales tax value for all internet purchases, which the federal government would then divvy up to each state how it sees fit).

--
Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
Re:And what about mail-order? by fr2asbury · 2003-09-26 10:47 · Score: 1

No, at least in Michigan you're supposed to report you're mail order purchases on your annual tax form. They do make it easy for you and let you choose a "default" amount based on how much your income is.
My dad chose that option and saved a bundle on the tax and relieved his conscience as I don't think he even keeps record of that and wouldn't have reported it (or would have guessed), but he orders a TON of stuff through catalogs etc. I don't see how it'd be any different for online orders.
Re:And what about mail-order? by archen · 2003-09-26 10:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually that makes me wonder what qualifies as an online purchase. I mean I can get a catalog in the mail and order an item by sending a check. Now if I contact the vendor online via email and send them the check, is that an "online" purchase, or a mail based purchase? How about if I call them on the phone and email them my address and such? How about if I order a program on the phone and they email it to me? As soon as you get away from the financial transactions online, the type of purchase gets pretty ambiguous rather quick.
Re:And what about mail-order? by kfg · 2003-09-26 12:08 · Score: 1

" I also believe that according the the current law, internet sales aren't taxed even when the buyer and the seller are in the same state."

This part is incorrect.

In fact you will likely find that sales tax will be charged on your purchase by the seller even if you order it from out of state, so long as the seller has a "presence" in your state.

If there's a Gateway Country store in your local mall you aren't going to save a penny by buying it over the internet.

KFG
Re:And what about mail-order? by LMariachi · 2003-09-26 15:22 · Score: 1

I believe that has to do with agreements between states, which circumvent the Commerce Clause since they're mutual voluntary agreements rather than imposed interstate tariffs.
Re:And what about mail-order? by KarmaOverDogma · 2003-09-26 16:03 · Score: 1

This may come as news to some, but if any (mail-order or internet) company has what is referred to as a "physical presence" within your state, then the goods are taxable, no matter how you bought them (unless you happen to be tax exempt or actually bought the product in a brick-and-mortar store, out-of-state).

This is why here, in the state of Ohio, if I order a Dell Laptop on the internet or by mail, salex tax is automatically applied.

Why? Because in Beachwood mall (there may be other locations, but one is all that it takes), there is Dell Kiosk where yuppies can buy Dell peripherals and order Dell merchandise for delivery.

What is being talked about here is the idea of taxing internet sales from out-of-state where no "physical presence" within the state exists at all.

As a business owner/operator, I do have a problem with this, as it looks to me like internet discrimination. But as a "devil's advocate" we should keep a few things in mind:

1) in many cases, the pure internet store has less overhead costs than even a mail-order catlogue, which must pay for such things as catologue production, which can be quite expensive, delivery, and telephone operators.

Pure Internet driven business can often overcome these costs by leaps and bounds with centralized datbases, html builder menus, scripts and SSL ordering (not to mention free email confirmation/delivery status, etc). There is also the economy of scale with larger companies, further enhanced by the internet's potentially global appeal.

2) Internet sites are often easier to shop-by than catlogues for the end user, and so in some cases, can cut into even the mail order business (those that aren't already also on the net, typically the very small mom-n-pop operations that dont have an owner/operator who can make a sigificant presence on the net viable).

3) The economy is increasingly becoming internet driven. We all know what e-commerce means, and that word has become ubiquitous for a reason. If left "untaxed" indefinetely, internet based sales will far outstrip that of catolgues in a matter of years, IMO.

So there's my two cents worth. Let the ranting continue.

--
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Re:And what about mail-order? by jackb_guppy · 2003-09-26 16:13 · Score: 1

The reason is most do not get a simple change...

The point of consumption is at the point of sale.

Texas (same letters as Taxes) does this already. It is the business location that defines the tax rate, not the buyers locations.

So then the states that do not have taxes setup this way will keep businesses... wait maybe they do.
Re:And what about mail-order? by man2525 · 2003-09-26 16:14 · Score: 1

Some companies, like Apple, charge sales tax on internet orders regardless of where the product is purchased from. I wonder if it gets pocketed?
Re:And what about mail-order? by doktor-hladnjak · 2003-09-26 23:02 · Score: 1

I remember reading about this on Apple's site once, so I went and found the link again.
Q: Will I have to pay sales tax?
A: Yes. Because it has a physical presence in all 50 states, Apple is required by law to collect applicable sales tax on all orders from the Apple Store. Sales tax is also collected on downloadable software purchases if required by law in the jurisdiction where the purchaser resides.
Most big retail companies (Walmart, Target, etc.) that allow online purchases as well, typically have to pay all these taxes as well, since they have stores just about everywhere.

Bad idea but... by elvesRgay · 2003-09-26 09:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think internet sales tax is a bad idea and will discourage on-line purchasing.

But I wonder if this could be good for Oregon if we decide not to do it. We don't have sales tax in Oregon. I don't know of any other state that doesn't have sales tax and whenever someone stops by to visit they are always surprised to get 1 cent back when they pay a dollar for something that costs 99 cents. Every time some politician tries to start up a sales tax it gets defeated. (so far). I don't know if we are one of the 45 states that require taxes on internet sales but hasn't been enforcing it that are mentioned in the article.

There are other things that could come of internet sales tax if its not enforced uniformly by all states. Encouraging on-line business to open up shops in their states could be done by lowering or removing state internet sales taxes for those companies.

Amazon is located in Washington State. However when someone orders a book from them its often shipped from Eugene Oregon. Does that mean they could avoid the internet sales tax through some loophole if Oregon doesn't start an internet sales tax?

Re:Bad idea but... by hardcnxn · 2003-09-26 09:46 · Score: 0

I believe Florida also has no sales tax.
Re:Bad idea but... by stratjakt · 2003-09-26 09:46 · Score: 1

Delaware has no sales tax either.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Bad idea but... by hardcnxn · 2003-09-26 09:51 · Score: 0

no, i was wrong.
Here is a list of states and their sales tax (or lack thereof).
Re:Bad idea but... by geekoid · 2003-09-26 09:54 · Score: 1

what is its state tax?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Bad idea but... by b!arg · 2003-09-26 10:02 · Score: 1

I believe New Hampshire has no sales tax either. They don't have income tax to boot. I have no idea where they get their money frankly.

I've always been in favor of killing the sales tax altogether and just implement an income tax. Or for those states that have income tax, increase it a little. Then you don't have this problem and it's not a regressive tax like the sales tax is. Here in Washington we have no income tax but our sales tax is at or above 8.8% (dpending on where you live exactly). Tax at a restaurant in Seattle is at 9.2%! Just get rid of that and tax me on 5% of my income or whathaveyou. Plus I can claim that against my fed taxes, I can't do that with sales tax.

--

Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful
Re:Bad idea but... by justMichael · 2003-09-26 10:37 · Score: 1

Here in Washington we have no income tax but our sales tax is at or above 8.8%

awww, come to Los Angeles where you pay ~8.5% and they take ~5% out of every pay check ;)
Re:Bad idea but... by b!arg · 2003-09-26 11:04 · Score: 1

OK...California is definitely an exception. I lived in S. Lake Tahoe for a bit and purposely lived on the Nevada side so I didn't have to deal with CA taxes. But what if they bumped up your income tax to like 7% and eliminated sales tax altogether? Would you prefer that? They don't need to raise and lower by the same percentage since they are getting it when it comes in, not just when and if it gets spent on taxable items. Plus if the state has no sales tax, the people in that state will probably buy from local businesses instead of online businesses because they can get it NOW. The shipping/sales tax trade-off isn't made. And that generates more income for that local business. More of your money is staying at home thus generating higher revenues for the state. Mind you these numbers are completely pulled from my ass and have no basis in fact. But I'd like to see a study that outlines the online buying habits of consumers in a state with no sales tax.

And maybe this doesn't affect you, but public colleges (University and CC level) are soooo much cheaper in Cali than just about anywhere else. I remember taking a class in a CC in California, but since I was a Nevada resident I had to pay $36/credit (which is the cost of the equivilent class in a Nevada CC), Cali residents paid $9/credit. UCs are also VERY cheap when compared to other state run universites. And those include some pretty damn good schools. I grew up in NorCal and I could swear a friend of mine that went to UC Davis paid something a little over $2000/year in tuition. That's ridiculously low! Of course this was close to 10 years ago, so considering California's mess nowadays it could be drastically different.

--

Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful
Re:Bad idea but... by dachshund · 2003-09-26 11:13 · Score: 1

I believe New Hampshire has no sales tax either. They don't have income tax to boot. I have no idea where they get their money frankly.
Lotteries and New Hampshire State Liquor stores. Combined with the near-absence of services funded by the state (as opposed to local services funded by property tax.)
Re:Bad idea but... by b!arg · 2003-09-26 11:17 · Score: 1

So gambling and drinking supports UNH? Makes sense...I know that's the bulk of what I did in college. So I guess it's a closed system. *grin*

--

Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful
Re:Bad idea but... by evilviper · 2003-09-26 13:32 · Score: 1

I don't know of any other state that doesn't have sales tax and whenever someone stops by to visit they are always surprised to get 1 cent back when they pay a dollar for something that costs 99 cents.

I think Alaska has every other state beat. Not only do the have no sales or income tax, but I hear that they PAY YOU to live there, something like $200/year. With a tiny number of residents, and a huge ammount of oil, you can afford to do that.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Bad idea but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 13:52 · Score: 0

Well, it's not a completely closed system. New Hampster makes a lot of money in the State Liquor Stores from Maine and Massachusetts residents who want to buy cheap booze. Owning the stores means that they undercut both states because their profit IS the liquor tax. Being open on Sundays helps,
too.
Re:Bad idea but... by atrus · 2003-09-26 14:32 · Score: 1

Community Colleges have gone up a fair bit since then (used to be $11/unit, now its more). UC Davis Fees and Tuition is $5,853 a year now. But, its still very cheap compared to many other schools and states.
Re:Bad idea but... by Simonetta · 2003-09-26 17:46 · Score: 1

I believe New Hampshire has no sales tax either. They don't have income tax to boot. I have no idea where they get their money frankly.

They bring in kick-ass bud from Quebec ("Marie-Jeanne?") and sell it to M.I.T. students in Boston. Helps MIT be consistently more creative than CalTech.

In the summer they set up road stands to sell pieces of rock from 'the old man of the mountains' to tourists.

They have high property taxes.
Re:Bad idea but... by bleak+sky · 2003-09-26 17:55 · Score: 1

The Permanent Fund dividend is closer to $1000/year, actually. :) The money, naturally, comes from investing the proceeds from the oil in stocks and other funds.
There are no state taxes; however, you will often find sales taxes in various counties and cities. Anchorage is sales-tax-free, for example, but Kodiak, Homer, Sodotna, and Kenai (Kodiak and Kenai Penninsula boroughs) have around a 4.5% sales tax, or at least that's what it was when I lived there.
Re:Bad idea but... by doktor-hladnjak · 2003-09-26 23:32 · Score: 1

I think Alaska has every other state beat.
Ya, it might be a great place to live tax-wise, but 1) it's freaking COLD in the winter and 2) despite the taxes, the cost of living there is much higher than any other state with low population density.

Will people please stop making excuses for Bush?! by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 09:44 · Score: 0, Flamebait

This is no accident, who do you think fucked up the budget with over spending and trillions of dollars in tax cuts? Maybe if our government werent running in a deficit we wouldnt have a problem saying "Dont tax the internet"

To all the people who say cutting federal taxes creates jobs, you are wrong, cutting state AND federal taxes will create jobs.

If you just cut federal taxes all it does is cause state taxes to rise, if you cut state taxes and raise federal taxes on everyone same situation.

So what is Bush going to do to make states lower taxes?

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Re:Old Joke by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:45 · Score: 0

Oh come on mods( read: michael ), you have to admit this is hilarious.

I would gladly pay the taxes... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:45 · Score: 1, Interesting

...as long as the money went to expanding public Internet infrastructure. Just like our taxes go to funding the freeways. Taxes do me much more good than anything I pay for from a corporation.

Re:I would gladly pay the taxes... by ciroknight · 2003-09-26 09:51 · Score: 1

Heh, the only thing I can think that would be worthy is giving me Fiber to my house ;), that'd be really nice :-D.. but more likely they'd just lay more copper to shore up the interconnecting sections..

What I'd really love to see: a new, non-profit organization ran .com/.net gTLD root server. This is the only thing I could think of that'd be worthy for everyone to pay taxes to get.. and even then I wouldn't want to pay taxes to get it, I'd much rather donate 50$ all at once... and I'm sure a lot of people share my sentements on this one...

--
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Re:I would gladly pay the taxes... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:24 · Score: 0

Who owns and controls the ISPs and the backbone of the Internet? Who owns and controls the highways and interstates? I think you should only tax what you have power to regulate and can turn the tax money into something benficial for item that you control.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:46 · Score: 0

Excuses for Bush? I seem to recall the current economic downturn starting over 6 months before Bush ever stepped into office.

How about... by DAldredge · 2003-09-26 09:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

How about the states/feds start doing what most normal people do when they have less money coming in.

STOP SPENDING SO MUCH FSCKING MONEY.

Just look at the budget for you state and see how much money they waste.

Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:21 · Score: 0

Problem is, they are between a rock and a hard place. Most of their budget is basically non-negotiable; lots of stuff that they are forced to provide by law. I understand some states really are at the point where cutting absolutely everything that they don't actually _have_ to provide still wouldn't bring them even close to black. The federal government continuing to pile on such mandates without the money to pay for it certainly doesn't help either.
Re:How about... by stfvon007 · 2003-09-26 10:25 · Score: 1

But we need that $300,000 alaskan grasshopper research the government paid for.....

--
All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
Re:How about... by kfg · 2003-09-26 11:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ah, but how many people are likely to stop spending money when they're using someone else's checkbook and credit card?

And they have a gun?

KFG
Re:How about... by zerocool^ · 2003-09-26 15:10 · Score: 1

Yeah. How about either:

1.) STOP passing tax cuts, or
2.) STOP increasing spending on the military.

It amazes that the powers that be can't see the connection: Less taxes mean less money, and more military action means less money, therefore, we have less money, because both of these things are happening. We have no money because you're bringing less in and putting more out.

--
sig?

Great, KILL our economy by agent+dero · 2003-09-26 09:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

If I know that I am going to be charged an extra tax for buying stuff online, i'll buy from Canadian or other foreign vendors.

If I pay tax for selling stuff online, i'll try to sell from another country, such as Canadia.

it's that simple, nobody likes useless taxes, look at the german tax system, everybody hates that, and they have taxes on drinks, cigarettes, damn near everything.

The key to keeping taxes low and within reason, is to not spend so much on other unnecessary things! *cough*war, welfare, politicians paychecks */cough*

--
Error 407 - No creative sig found

Re:Great, KILL our economy by stratjakt · 2003-09-26 09:53 · Score: 1

Sure, because canada never taxes anything! Tax free everything in canada! Beer is so cheap! Cigarettes and gasoline too!

I just hope they don't come up with the idea of "taxing" goods as they're shipped across the border. That's such a shitty idea I'd probably call it a "doody".

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Great, KILL our economy by Txiasaeia · 2003-09-26 09:59 · Score: 1

As a Canadian, I can only view your post with amusement. I've been ordering things from the States for *years* because it's cheaper (usually textbooks, but sometimes hard-to-get DVDs and books), and let me tell you, sometimes it's *ridiculously* so.
Say a product (DVD set, books, whatever) is the same price in the US and here in Saskatchewan. If the cost of the product is over $60-70 CAD (can't remember right now), and shipping's free, it's actually cheaper to order it from the states than it is to go to Futureshop to buy it. Why? Provincial sales tax doesn't apply to out-of-province purchases.
Does this make any sense? It's cheaper to buy something from the US, Ontario or England because there's less tax on it.
But, in the future, I would suggest that all your American friends order DVDs and books from Canada. A new DVD here is about $25 CAD ($18 USD); you wouldn't have to pay any taxes, not to mention that if you order in bulk you can get it shipped to you for free.

--
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Re:Great, KILL our economy by DigiShaman · 2003-09-26 10:01 · Score: 1

I agree. What we need is for a flat tax system. You can read about Fair Tax at this site. http://www.fairtax.org/

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Great, KILL our economy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:03 · Score: 0

it's that simple, nobody likes useless taxes, look at the german tax system, everybody hates that, and they have taxes on drinks, cigarettes, damn near everything.

yeah, why the hell do they tax cigarettes? Its not like years of second-hand smoke or first-hand smoke is fucking up our health care system!

Useless taxes!

*cough*
Re:Great, KILL our economy by Dr+Caleb · 2003-09-26 10:21 · Score: 1

northamericandvd.com
Based in Ontairo, free next day shipping on 10 discs or more.
I've bought all the Stargate, B5, DS9 series from them, and the Star Trek special edition movie collections from them. They arrived in 2 days, normal ground delivery.
Highly reccommended by me. No, I don't work for them.

--
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Re:Great, KILL our economy by WindBourne · 2003-09-26 10:33 · Score: 1

Probably not true for several reasons.
MS accounts for about 1/5 of all sites and about 1/2 of https sites. They have nearly 100% of all the credit card thefts. I would guess from what I have seen, that most americans do not even check that.
In addition, I would guess that few really do massive searches for the lowest prices while on the web. They tend to be impulse buyers with a kind of a range of what they are willing to buy. The proof for this is the fact that so many sites are actually higher priced on items than you would find in the stores.
In addition, look at the history of ebay which is actually loaded with crooks who are willing to take you to the cleaners, and yet there is a HUGE market.
There is no doubt in my mind that even with taxes, buying will still go on from local sites.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Great, KILL our economy by DunbarTheInept · 2003-09-26 11:57 · Score: 1

Best situations, tax-wise, in order from best to worst:
1 - low taxes across the board.
2 - high taxes across the board.
3 - low taxes on some things, high on others.

While high taxes does suppress the economy, if it does so UNIVERSALLY, it doesn't end up propping up one type of thing artificially over another. Taxes that make one type of business venture "win" over another for artificial reasons are even MORE damaging to the economy than high taxes all around. With high taxes all around, at least the normal checks and balances of the market still are the primary determinant of which businesses do better than which other ones. But right now, the brick-and-mortar retailers have a huge disadvantage over internet retailers specificly because of the disparity in how they are taxed. Right now the government has inadvertently created an incentive to close down all brick-and-mortar shops and do everything on the internet instead, which causes brick-and-mortar businesses to dry up for reasons OTHER than their economic suitability.

Right now, with internet sales, we're at #3 - the WORST one of the bunch. I'd rather see us move to #1, but that's not likely, and moving to #2 is *still* an improvement. Why should the sales taxes be different for orders placed by telephone versus ones placed by HTTP? What f-ing difference does it make?

FIRST get rid of that disparity. SECOND work on lowering the taxes overall for all sales.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Great, KILL our economy by r00t3r · 2003-09-26 12:12 · Score: 1

You pay taxes on cigarettes and alchol and gasoline in the US. It's just already included in the price and not added on at the time of purchase so you never really know it. Federal tax on gasoline is over .15 per gallon, and your home state has there hand in there too. Total taxes on gasoline in SC are .34 per gallon.
Re:Great, KILL our economy by Trepalium · 2003-09-26 14:09 · Score: 1

Actually, I believe you are still responsible for paying your provincial sales tax on purchases you make from out of province/country. Of course, no one ever does, and no one ever checks for it, but still. The only exception that I know of is automobiles. Anyone who tries to register a car or truck in Manitoba must pay sales tax on it first (side effect of having public insurance), regardless of if it's a private sale or not.

--
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Re:Great, KILL our economy by kiolbasa · 2003-09-26 14:09 · Score: 1

Canadia. That's a good one. I'll have to remember it next time I want to make fun of that country.

Canadia. Brilliant.

--

Beer wants to be free
Re:Great, KILL our economy by Malcontent · 2003-09-26 14:42 · Score: 1

Let's see now.

Joe Next door makes 30K per year as a teacher. He gets taxed 10% and now has 27K per year to make it. Ouch man that hurts, he could have really used that extra 3K to pay for rent or food.

Joe Milionaire makes 30 Million per year. He pays 10% and now has 27 million per year to make it. I wonder how he will ever survive on that kind of money.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Great, KILL our economy by Moofie · 2003-09-26 15:03 · Score: 1

So, you're suggesting raising taxes on everything, hoping someday in the future that the legislature will lower taxes on everything.

May I acquaint you with the concept of the ratchet effect? Raising taxes is relatively easy. Lowering them in any meaningful way is very very hard.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Great, KILL our economy by Elbow+Macaroni · 2003-09-27 01:46 · Score: 1

>Why should the sales taxes be different for orders
>placed by telephone versus ones placed by HTTP?
>What f-ing difference does it make?
There is no difference. If you order mail order from out of state there are no state taxes charged on that either. So this would affect all mail order stores too. It would really hurt the US economy because stores like Amazon could move their headquarters out of the country.

--
-------------------------------------
Technically, we are beyond survival.
Re:Great, KILL our economy by Elbow+Macaroni · 2003-09-27 01:59 · Score: 1

If you had read the article you would have seen that they are only trying put more effort into collecting the taxes already due.
If you have a business license and live in, say, Illinois, then when you sell something via email or mail order to someone in Illinois, then you have to collect Illinois sales tax.
Walmart in the past was not paying the states sales taxes they should have been collecting from thier website. Walmart should be charging sales tax on every purchase because they have a store in every state.
That's what the article was about was collecting those taxes from stores that should be collecting them anyway for the sales done within their home states.

--
-------------------------------------
Technically, we are beyond survival.
Re:Great, KILL our economy by BandwidthHog · 2003-09-28 07:21 · Score: 1

I hope you're not the type who rants and raves about mega-corps "moving" offshore to avoid paying taxes.

--

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:48 · Score: 0

Tax cuts made a small recession into a collapse. George Bush is a miserable failure.

It's about time. by m3j00 · 2003-09-26 09:49 · Score: 1, Interesting

There is no valid reason why this shouldn't be done. Before the internet age it would've been impossible due to the constantly changing sales tax rates all over the United States. Now it's time for a change. I think along with this there should be some mandates for cities/counties/states to keep their sales tax info in some central database that vendors can access to find out exactly how much sales tax they must charge.

i was going to say something by proj_2501 · 2003-09-26 09:49 · Score: 0, Offtopic

but then i realized that i guessed the content of the article before reading it.

State arguments by andyring · 2003-09-26 09:49 · Score: 4, Informative

I hope people see this for what it is: states experiencing financial hardships are looking for new cash cows to balance their budgets, thanks to years of overspending during the false and short-lived economic boom of the late 90s, that is now coming back to bite them. They will say that it is "lost" revenue. Something cannot be lost if it never existed in the first place!

I find it interesting that when a business experiences tight finances, they must improve efficiency and trim costs in order to stay afloat. Heaven forbid a government entity have to do the same thing! Cut one penny from a bloated government program (or even cut the rate of growth!), and suddenly the headlines scream about no school lunches and seniors losing social security.

Sickening.

Re:State arguments by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:48 · Score: 0

It's because there is a wide variance of opinion about what constitutes "bloat" in the government.

For instance, a lot of people cry bloody murder over welfare recipients, despite that, in most cases, the government expense re: welfare is many, many times less than the governmetn expense re: agriculture or high-technology industry subsidies.

Some would claim the welfare recipients are leeches and that program represents bloat. Others would claim that the socialist practice of artificially propping up industries represents bloat. Others, would have us cut both.

The difference is that nobody argues what the purpose of a company is--profits. People the world over argue the function of government.
Re:State arguments by Karadryel · 2003-09-26 10:52 · Score: 1

They will say that it is "lost" revenue. Something cannot be lost if it never existed in the first place!
Before there was this "Intarweb" thing, you purchased products from local stores, right? If you couldn't buy things online, you'd probably have to buy them from those same local stores, no?
Unless you believe that consumers are magicking up the extra money they're spending on goods online, it seems reasonable to believe that the money now spent online used to be spent at local stores. Consumers are buying the same amount of stuff, but now instead of having 100% of those items taxed, now only 80% of them are taxed (or whatever your number is). That revenue used to exist for the state, and now because of the internet it does not. Sounds suspiciously like "lost" revenue to me ...
This is a legitimate issue for the states. We can go into incredible depth discussing the merits of creating an internet sales tax versus increasing the brick/mortar sales tax versus increasing other state taxes (for example, note that making online purchases tax-free is effectively regressive taxation, since by and large it's the rich who have the technology to avoid the tax by shopping online), but the point is that sales tax is supposed to be a tax on consumption. It's not unreasonable for them to want to enforce that.
I think we all need to stop whining and realize that just because we used to get something for free doesn't mean that we're entitled to get it for free forever (which favorite /. discussion does this remind you of?).
Re:State arguments by DunbarTheInept · 2003-09-26 12:09 · Score: 1

Something cannot be lost if it never existed in the first place!

Ever heard of sales tax? Why does an order placed over the telephone get taxed and one placed over HTTP does not?

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:State arguments by kavau · 2003-09-26 12:50 · Score: 1

They will say that it is "lost" revenue. Something cannot be lost if it never existed in the first place!
Nonsense. Internet sales are lost revenue indeed! If amazon.com wouldn't exist, I'd buy my books at the nearest bookstore, and would pay sales tax. Now that it exists I buy my books online and don't pay sales tax. How is that not lost revenue for the state?
Whether the states should levy sales taxes on internet transactions is a complicated question. But the argument about lost revenue is valid.
Re:State arguments by Saeger · 2003-09-26 16:04 · Score: 1

Ever heard of sales tax? Why does an order placed over the telephone get taxed and one placed over HTTP does not?
Ever heard of mail order? It doesn't matter if you use the postal service, a phone or a webbrowser when you buy from a company with no biz presence in your own state. Are you inept, Dunbar?
--

--
Power to the Peaceful
Re:State arguments by Fjandr · 2003-09-27 03:45 · Score: 1

So should states make it illegal to buy anything anywhere other than in-state, so as not to lose sales tax revenue? How about municipalities? When one has a lower tax rate, they tend to draw business from surrounding municipalities, thus reducing tax revenues for some. Should this be made illegal? Using that logic, we should just be given everything by some regulatory agency tha determines what we deserve, and spend the rest of the time working for the state.

Oh, I forgot. There's this little thing called the Constitution. It prevents states from meddling in the affairs of other states, and in the the affairs of citizens who travel into and do business in/with other states. States cannot tax out-of-state purchases, because they have no jurisdiction to do so. They have no authority over a transaction involving multiple interstate jurisdictions. That's why citizens from states without sales taxes can buy without being charged tax in most states with sales taxes.

States have no right to any revenue source. The only have the power to levy under specific circumstances: those provided for by law. If the law does not address it, they cannot collect revenue from it. They don't "deserve" anything. If you can legally circumvent a system of taxation, you are doing absolutely nothing wrong. Lost revenue is not a valid argument unless some sort of fraud or misrepresentation is involved.

Note, I am not talking about intrastate transactions, as those are technically covered by sales tax laws. However, most intrastate transactions completed over the internet have sales taxes added, so this is not really much an issue at all.
Re:State arguments by Fjandr · 2003-09-27 03:52 · Score: 1

You can apply the same argument to the states. Just because they used to get something for free doesn't mean they're entitled to remain getting it for free in the face of emerging technologies. The internet opened up trade between jurisdictions that was not as easy to perform before. States have no Constitutional authority over interstate trade (which is what this is). The majority of intrastate commerce via internet is already taxed, so that's not much of an issue. If states are worried about that, they need to start enforcing their own laws in their own juridictions. As far as interstate trade, they're going to have to amend the Constitution to remove the Commerce Clause to collect interstate taxes.

If people want to whine about lost revenue, look at exactly how state money is spent. State and federal spending could be cut in half tomorrow, and the only people who would be affected would be a few select special interests. Ask your local Congresscritter why they won't support that.

Screw the mismanaged states by NaCh0 · 2003-09-26 09:49 · Score: 1

But it does raise a good point. We should drop the entire IRS system and replace it with a national sales tax. This way each American can see how much the government is *really* taking out of their pockets.

Re:Screw the mismanaged states by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 20:52 · Score: 0

The only problem with that is it encourages money hording. Prying money out of the rich class is hard enough with all welfare they get, err, I mean incentives.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by DAldredge · 2003-09-26 09:50 · Score: 1

How? It's not like the federal goverment cut spending to make up for the tax cut. The fed just borrowed more money.

How did the tax cut hurt the economy?

Unfair? by torklugnutz · 2003-09-26 09:50 · Score: 1

I don't really see why this is unfair. If a person drives to another state and buys something, they have to pay tax. People from CA drive to Oregon all the time in order to avoid paying sales tax. I don't want to pay any more for anything, but at the same time, I think it's fair to pay sales tax where it's due.

I do however think that paying income tax to one or two governments (depending on your state laws), then having to pay sales tax on top of previously taxed money is ridiculous. When I only get to keep $.90 out of a dollar, and then I lose another $.0725 whenever I buy anything, it kind of pisses me off. Thank god the ROTH limits are up to $5k per year.

--
Often in Error, Never in Doubt.

Re:Unfair? by Mr.+No+Skills · 2003-09-26 16:01 · Score: 1

If a person drives to another state and buys something, they have to pay tax.

If I drive up to Deleware I don't have to pay sales tax - they don't have one. If I drive to Pennsylvania, I don't have to pay sales tax on clothing - they don't have one. If I drive to Virginia I pay less tax.

No one is screaming to stop all the outlet malls opening up in Deleware, or the bus trips to PA. If the states really wanted to stop all this, they would get together and agree on one sales tax policy and there wouldn't be any advantage to shopping outside your taxing district. Of course, as long as one state sees an advantage, this will never happen.

So, the state governments think this is unfair because they know there are dollars they could get their hands on. But if we are truly capitalists, then no one should be outraged at people looking around for the best deal.

--
Sleep is for the Weak

Tell Bush to stop spending please. by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 09:51 · Score: 1

First he needs to stop spending so much money on OTHER countries. If he is going to spend I'd rather he spend it on our states so we can pay less taxes.

Second I'd say that states dont have the money to spend while the federal government does, so telling states to stop spending so much is moot, states are already forced to cut spending, how about we start a petition to get Bush to reduce the size of government and stop spending so much.

Who is with me?

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Re:Tell Bush to stop spending please. by Augusto · 2003-09-26 10:22 · Score: 1

Geeks for Dean?

You better hope Dean doesn't win the primary of your party, or there won't be any chance the Dems can't beat Bush. It's scary how many people are hoping Dean wins, when every poll shows him trailing Bush in a general election.

BTW, I may not like this tax but I don't see how we can justify not collecting taxes for internet transactions. Is that fair to a local business, having to compete with that?

--

- sigs are for wimps.
Re:Tell Bush to stop spending please. by chickenmilkbomb · 2003-09-26 11:52 · Score: 1

Sales tax is supposed to be used to pay for local services used by local business. A company selling over the internet does not use these services except for in the state where it is located, so why should it have to pay sales tax in other states?

On top of that, if local business cannot compete, then they should go out of business. Sounds harsh, but propping up a business that cannot compete by taxing a more efficient business does not help anyone in the LONG run. Jobs lost at local businesses will be replaced with jobs in other areas (shipping, programmers) and the average worker will be more productive, which does help in the long run.

Sometimes people will be willing to pay more for the ability to go to a local store. I go over to Fry's every couple of weeks just to look around, and I am usually willing to pay a little more for the convenience.

Also, is it fair to internet companies that customers in local stores don't have to pay for shipping? Should we charge some extra tax in local stores to subsidize internet shipping costs?

--
He hates these cans!!!
Re:Tell Bush to stop spending please. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 12:10 · Score: 0

Dean says he'll withhold money from states if they pass laws he doesn't agree with. Dean can suck eggs.
Re:Tell Bush to stop spending please. by wayward_son · 2003-09-26 12:50 · Score: 1

Hell, we'll secede again. This time it will work, dammit!
Re:Tell Bush to stop spending please. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 14:50 · Score: 0

According to the article, it is the States asking for the money, not the federal government. My state (North Carolina) has been cutting budgets for education across the board in many counties.
While I am not a fan of more taxes, this measure may help many areas that are having financial problems.

Also, why should a purchase be tax free, when other merchants have to charge it?

A question to be pondered, would the tax be collected from the state sold in, or the state purchased in? And who collects the tax? The merchants, and if so, do they then have to keep up with multiple states sales tax laws?
Re:Tell Bush to stop spending please. by CaptBubba · 2003-09-26 15:03 · Score: 1

Not yet, still too hot out. Let's wait until October.
Re:Tell Bush to stop spending please. by zerocool^ · 2003-09-26 15:16 · Score: 1

why should a purchase be tax free, when other merchants have to charge it?

Because:
1.) The federal government does not levy sales tax.
2.) The federal government is the sole arbiter of innerstate commerce.
3.) Sales taxes are collected by local governments to presumably pay for the expenditures of the local government.

An online business uses no local resources, and people shouldn't have to pay taxes to $STATE_X when ordering something comming from $STATE_Y, especially when the purchase used no resources from $STATE_X's budget, with possibly the exception of the roads.

Keeping in mind that interstates are funded by the federal government, as is the postal service.

~Will

--
sig?
Re:Tell Bush to stop spending please. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 21:50 · Score: 0

Better yet, how about when $STATE_X and $STATE_Y get into a fight about who gets to levy the state sales tax? Is the tax levied based the state of the purchaser, or levied based the state of the store?

This is a serious can of worms that States don't want to think will happen, but yet, it will. Then they'll waste even more state and federal tax dollars fighting it out in court, at the end of which, they will never make back the $$$ they've wasted.
Re:Tell Bush to stop spending please. by Clzame · 2003-09-27 02:52 · Score: 1

I would like to replly to the author with a hearty Horse$hit. If you were to look at say a grocery chain that opperates with such low margins/ say 2-3% you can easyly see how a 4-8% sales tax advatage would put you out of bussiness. Also don't think for a minute that the local company did'nt pay the shipping cost.Open your mind and see the real world.I'm not a big tax kind of person but this evolution of E commerce has and is changing the retail enviroment. The extraction of this important base will not allow the house to stand.
Re:Tell Bush to stop spending please. by chickenmilkbomb · 2003-09-27 07:18 · Score: 1

1. A grocery store? That is a horrible example. Do you know of an online grocery store that does not have a local presence in your state that is less expensive than local grocery store prices including sales tax?

2. Call me crazy, but I bet online stores paying shipping costs on inventory.

--
He hates these cans!!!
Re:Tell Bush to stop spending please. by Clzame · 2003-09-27 14:53 · Score: 1

Yea Right on, the old grocery store was a bad example for a real world example. the reason I used it was because the margins are well known.It was ment to show case the #s. The reality of this is that money taken from one area and not replaced is money that went to money heaven. If you are a community that bases it's or part of it's financhal foundation on this revenue stream, you will have to find a replacement. But that is not how the playing field was set up. So now with the new rules we are going to protest. The consumer may win in the short haul but we all will lose in the long run. Our country is at Gridlock of specialinterests and it comes out of your quality of life. I am self employed. I have never declared Bankfruadcy. Please advise what industry you may work for? and have you or will you file for bankfraudcy?
Re:Tell Bush to stop spending please. by chickenmilkbomb · 2003-09-27 19:42 · Score: 1

First of all, the money does not go to money heaven. It goes into the pockets of the hard working people that earned it in the first place. Those people can do two basic things with it: spend it, or save it. If they spend it, it pumps more money into the economy creating new jobs. If they save it, assuming that they put it in a bank or invest the savings, they also pump more money into the economy. If they put the money into a bank, the bank is then free to lend the money out to finance companies, mortgages, etc. Investing does the same in a direct way.

If you live in a community that bases it's financial foundation on sales tax, then you lose. But it is not a zero sum game. The money saved on taxes multiplies and more people win than lose.

You mention special interests...That seems funny to me. You are arguing for a tax that props up inefficient business at the expense of the public. That sounds a lot like a special interest to me.

The invention of the automobile drove a lot of blacksmiths out of business. No more horseshoes. Was that a bad thing? Times change, people think of better ways to do things and some businesses lose jobs as a result.

--
He hates these cans!!!
Re:Tell Bush to stop spending please. by Clzame · 2003-09-28 01:05 · Score: 1

Well let's address a couple of issues. 1st off believe me that it is a rare case that I am defending any tax. But when it comes to sales taxes that are inacted for the people by the people, then I favor the accountability of that type of tax. 2nd.The jobs that are being created are in China.Just look at the 25bil/125bil. spending deficet with China. 3rd. the example that I use is ment to fund basic community services. the area becomes very grey because it requires an entire dissertation on what that is. 4th. I am not talking about a tax that is supporting a bussiness, it is supporting a community. The inability of the business to overcome the operational difference is the penalty it has to pay to be in bussines. 5th. I am not saying don't build a better mouse trap.With the evoulution of E commerce and the largest population on earth(China) Capitolism pursues a vicious cycle of efficency.But as we play the game, we have to under stand that just like cancer and it's host-cancer prevails. It is cancer that ultimaly losses cause there's nothing left to lunch on. and last but not least have you ever filed for bankrupcy and who are you employed by or what industry? I work in the housing industry

Love, your reps by proj_2501 · 2003-09-26 09:51 · Score: 1

Last time the economy was doing poorly WE HAD A GIGANTIC TAX CUT. It ruined everything and caused a recession.

Now another Bush is in power, and the economy is doing poorly. WE JUST PASSED ANOTHER GIGANTIC TAX CUT! (and we'll do it again if we have to!)

Re:Love, your reps by mcwop · 2003-09-26 09:58 · Score: 1

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

--
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Re:Love, your reps by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:58 · Score: 0

"the economy is doing poorly"

Where the fuck do you live? The economy is just fine. Do you EVER read the financial page? If you do, do you understand it?

All I need now is a good tax cut so I won't have to support unemployed bums like you.
Re:Love, your reps by Bull999999 · 2003-09-26 10:06 · Score: 1

Didn't Bush, Sr. lost the re-election because he RAISED the tax?

--
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Re:Love, your reps by Jhon · 2003-09-26 10:19 · Score: 1

Translation:

A happened before B -- therefore, A caused B.

Example:

My dog barked BEFORE I got a flat tire -- Therefore, my barking dog caused my flat tire.

Also known as a falacy of false cause... I figured proj_2501 wouldn't know what the hell you were talking about as he apparently has no idea what the hell HE'S talking about...
Re:Love, your reps by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:27 · Score: 0

The economy is not fine, do you understand who pays for unemployment? Employers do, not you, asshole.
Re:Love, your reps by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:37 · Score: 0

Yeah, I see thousands of them in the projects being paid by their employers. You make me laugh. Get out in the real world, bozo.

And the economy is fine. Employment is always the last thing to recover after a recession. Where did you learn your economics? Plus, most of the unemployed are will never have a job because they don't want one.
Re:Love, your reps by proj_2501 · 2003-09-26 15:43 · Score: 1

relax, i snagged it from someone else's cartoon
Re:Love, your reps by proj_2501 · 2003-09-26 15:46 · Score: 1

every time i read the financial page it says stuff along the likes of "well, the economy seems to be getting better, but unemployment isn't going down"

all you need now is a real set of balls and a slashdot account, ya pansy.

libertarian by SHEENmaster · 2003-09-26 09:52 · Score: 0

STOP BUYING THINGS FOR PEOPLE, STOP TAXING PEOPLE, AND LET PEOPLE BUY THINGS FOR THEIR OWN DAMN SELVES!.

The states have NO reason to buy all this crap at prices much higher than citizens would pay. Despite popular opinion, people are smart enough to pay for things themselves.

France's economy is fucked right now because their openly socialist government pays for every damn thing. Canada's taxes are skyrocketing out of control for the same reason.

America doesn't openly admit its socialism, but that isn't preventing the BS from developing. We start more and more recurring-cost projects each year, the majority of which are pointless.

Read more.

--
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.

Re:libertarian by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:58 · Score: 0

Capital-"L" Libertarians don't stand for liberty, but rather for corporate fascism.

I'd say that Libertarians are a step above Mussolini, but in reality they're a step below -- at least Benito was honest about wanting to fuck the poor.
Re:libertarian by aduzik · 2003-09-26 10:15 · Score: 1

Well, I want the *liberty* to spend my money the way I want to. You want the *liberty* to take money you haven't earned and give it to others who haven't earned it. How is that fair to either of us? It's not, so quit pretending taxation is fair, especially when it's leveraged disproportionately on the rich. Libertarians are the only political group with a consistent message -- freedom from the tyranny of government.

--
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
Re:libertarian by alex_ant · 2003-09-26 10:34 · Score: 1

France's economy is fucked right now because their openly socialist government pays for every damn thing. Canada's taxes are skyrocketing out of control for the same reason.
A little melodramatic are we? At least in those countries nobody has to choose between paying rent and eating.
Re:libertarian by alex_ant · 2003-09-26 10:41 · Score: 1

One could argue against the means and say that the reason disproportionately taxing the rich is "fair" is because the rich have, in general, disproportionately benefitted from society (education, infrastructure, etc.). So it's only fair that they should give more back. (Not enough that they won't still be very well off)

Or one could argue against the ends and say that the more equally you tax the rich relative to everyone else, the closer your society gets to a fascist aristocracy, kind of like the USSR but with oppressive corporations instead of oppressive government.
Re:libertarian by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:55 · Score: 0

France's economy is fucked right now because their openly socialist government pays for every damn thing. Canada's taxes are skyrocketing out of control for the same reason
Nice attempt at a troll. It would have been more effective if it were actually true. Income taxes, corporate taxes, and such in Canada have actually been going down over the past few years, with government services cut to pay for them.
Re:libertarian by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 11:22 · Score: 0

It's not your money.

You "earned" that money while using government services, such as:
* Police protection
* Fire protection
* Pollution regulations
* Public education
* Public-maintained roads
Depending on your municipality, you may have also benefited from:
* Public water
* Public health services
* Public housing projects
The list goes on indefinitely.

Listen. You live in a society. You depend on others, others depend on you. Part of the price of living in a society is paying for services rendered to others. Why?

Because that's what keeps things running. I'd like to see you generate wealth with a populace of sick, under-educated, unhappy serfs.
Re:libertarian by aduzik · 2003-09-26 11:38 · Score: 1

I am rich, and I have not benefited from the government more than anyone else. I went to private schools, but my parents paid for both public and private schooling for me. I only benefitted from one. Please tell me how this is fair.
My parents were rich because they worked for it. They were given no advantages in life. They went to poor -- albeit Catholic -- schools (their parents paid for two schools as well, even though they could ill afford it). They didn't benefit any more than anyone else from the government. The amount of money they, and I, pay in taxes is absurd for the value we've gotten from the government. If I truly wanted to get my money's worth, I would quit work altogether and collect welfare. It is what I have paid for. I have earned it. I deserve to benefit from it.
Furthermore, I am more than willing to pay for what public services I use. I am not willing to let people who don't deserve my money have free reign over it. That is what is not fair.
Oppressive corporations? I get raises based on the ever-rising quality of my work. That has been the most profoundly liberating experience of my life. I am rewared for my hard work. The government rewards those who produce nothing and deserve nothing. If you're being paid for the value of your work, and that value happens to be small, then no injustice has been done.
I buy goods and services from corporations by my consent only. No one forces me to buy a product. It is my choice. I have the power to curtail their profits at any time -- by refusing to buy from them. I have the power, they do not. They have to prove themselves worthy of my dollar. Is this what you call oppressive?
Both the means and the ends of government taxation are immoral. They take people further away from happiness, not closer to it.

--
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
Re:libertarian by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 12:18 · Score: 0

Not to mention a society which allows anyone, anywhere to start up their own business, or work in practically any job they want, and earn however much money they want.
Re:libertarian by alex_ant · 2003-09-26 12:29 · Score: 1

You've not gotten rich in a vacuum. There are laws and regulations in place to protect your property and your rights. In fact the entire social and economic environment you've grown up in has been designed, more or less, to make it easier for you to improve your lot in life. You may not like taxes, but although you've had to pay them, they've also helped you out. For example, you say that you are willing to pay for what public services you use, but you are not willing to pay back the system for the laws and that helped and are helping you immeasurably (and are promulgated and enforced by other people's tax dollars).

You're very smart and you're happy and you're rich. This "socialist" system (if you can even call it that) has obviously done you very well. Tearing it down would increase the difficulty of a lot of others (who weren't as lucky/smart/educated/endowed/whatever as you) who live on the bottom rung to improve THEIR lot. I don't know your parents, but it takes more than hard work alone to get rich. Usually it takes that, plus the right combination of having the right connections, being smart enough, having good luck, being in the right place at the right time, etc. Also you say your parents had no advantages in life. Well, they were white, right? (How did I know that?) That's a little bit of an advantage right there. They were smart, right? That's another, and they always had some money before they got rich, right? They didn't have any serious, expensive-to-treat diseases, right? And as their wealth increased, so did their ability to spend money on furthering their wealth even more, thus accelerating their economic rise, right? I call all of those advantages.

Does anybody really deserve nothing if they don't work? Not even the ability to have heat in the winter and eat a meager diet? If you say no, what about the kids of the people who don't? I take it your parents didn't raise you to be a compassionate Catholic... I understand your views and I understand how they've been shaped by your life experiences, but I would encourage you to spend some time, just a little, volunteering to help out the less fortunate, or just in some way getting better acquainted with the lower economic/social classes you aren't as familiar with.
Re:libertarian by DunbarTheInept · 2003-09-26 13:05 · Score: 1

Libertarians are the only political group with a consistent message -- freedom from the tyranny of government.

If that's where their message ended I'd have no problem supporting them. But they *also* include the message that it is totally impossible for a corporation to ever do anything wrong so get off their backs. The ability for SCO, Microsoft, and Enron's executives to make money based on criminal bullshit proves that to be a naive and dangerous illusion to uphold.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:libertarian by wayward_son · 2003-09-26 13:12 · Score: 1

What you present is a false dichotomy. Your argument presents a choice between the modern semi-socialist goverment and anarchy.

There is something in between: Limited Government. It is a Government that keeps the country safe, protects your property rights, protects you from crime and yes, even promotes the general welfare of its population.

However, the problem comes when too much Government becomes not something that promotes the general welfare of the population, but becomes overbearing and discourages economic achievement. Welfare discourages people from getting a job. After all, you could do nothing and get a reasonable percentage of what you could make at a entry level job. High progressive taxes discourage people from making more money, as the harder one works, the less reward one reaps from that work. We've been fighting the "War on Poverty" since the 1960's. Now we have third generation welfare families.

I resent the "Compassionate Catholic" remark, even though it was not directed at me. Just because people oppose GOVERNMENT solutions to poverty does not mean that they are not charitable and they do not help those less fortunate than themselves. They just prefer private solutions as opposed to Goverment solutions as they tend to be more effective and not as impersonal. Those who favor Big Government do not necessarily help the poor, while those who oppose it are not necessarily against the poor.
Re:libertarian by wayward_son · 2003-09-26 13:15 · Score: 1

I would quit work altogether and collect welfare. It is what I have paid for. I have earned it. I deserve to benefit from it.

Well, you do get to do that when you turn 65. Hopefully.
Re:libertarian by drsmithy · 2003-09-26 16:08 · Score: 1

America doesn't openly admit its socialism [...]
That's because "socialism" in the US is like "right-wing" in most other civilised countries :).
Re:libertarian by alex_ant · 2003-09-26 17:25 · Score: 1

If you want to talk about limited government, then the question is "how limited." Our government is already quite limited compared to most other first world nations'. You denounce the gov't for discouraging economic achievement, but really, I don't think that, as a financially successful person, I'd be persuaded to leave the country by, say, a 5% higher income tax. As a matter of fact, I would guess that the richer I was, the less likely I'd be to pinch pennies. And where would I flee to, if I wanted to? The UK? Canada? France? Where income taxes are all higher than they are in the US? To turn it around, I don't see hordes of Japanese or European millionaires emigrating to the US to escape their income taxes. (Granted, Europe probably has fewer millionaires per capita, but so what?) Somehow lots of countries can manage these "high" tax rates without imploding - actually, they even manage pretty high quality of life ratings at the same time.

I'm not advocating a high, crippling, total-redistribution progressive tax. I'm advocating a tax rate that strikes a compromise between letting successful people enjoy the spoils of their work/inheritance/whatever, and making sure poor people who don't / can't work aren't dropping dead of hypothermia all over the place or living a lifetime of indentured servitude when they need an operation and they don't have health insurance. THAT, in my mind, is fairness.

The US War on Poverty has been a failure because any kind of war on poverty that could actually work would be unacceptable to the majority (center/right) of the US political spectrum. That's not to say the left has its act together either, especially in the US, but Europe/Canada/Japan seem to be doing at least a little better on this front than the US.

Whether private solutions are more effective than government solutions in fighting poverty, I don't know. I do acknowledge the impersonality and coldness of government "help." My question is, if libertarians advocate private solutions over gov't solutions, what are they waiting for? People are falling into the economic shitter left and right these days, facing some very scary, very serious situations (loss of job, loss of health w/ no insurance, etc.). When was the last time the Libertarian Party organized a food drive? Every libertarian I've ever spoken to has been very smart, articulate, obviously a deep thinker, but I've never heard a libertarian describe his/her (usually it's a he - a young, white, affluent he) experiences volunteering at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen. I'm not saying give all poor people free HBO and all the steak they can eat, I'm just saying people should not be prevented from living at a "reasonable" (bottom-of-the-barrel subsistence) standard strictly due to their own poor choices, opportunities, education, luck, etc. in life.
Re:libertarian by aduzik · 2003-09-26 17:40 · Score: 1

I'm not a libertarian -- I love life, and I couldn't ever hate myself enough to declare a political affiliation.
Now, let's take Enron as an example. The purpose of a corporation is to make a profit. That is the moral imperative of capitalism. Enron has failed to do that -- their entire organization collapsed as a result of the immoral behavior of their executives. By taking more than what they were owed and lying about their lack of production, they doomed thousands of hard-working deserving people to poverty. Furthermore, they have precipitated the collapse of countless other organizations that relied upon Enron as a customer. That is an unspeakable evil, and those people deserve to be punished as severely as the worst serial murderer -- they have murdered the organization, the labor of countless people.
Their crime, more than anything else, was a lack of purpose. It is purposelessness that encourages the belief in one's unearned and unlimited right to the effort of others. That is what the current government advocates. It is a government that, for lack of any definite purpose, has set about doing whatever it is that grabs their attention for even a moment. "Who's responsibility is it to ensure the wellbeing of the people? Surely not the people themselves! It's the government's duty!"
What is lacking in the current government is a fundamental recognition of their purpose. The goal of the government is to implement the constitution, and nothing else. The constitution is the moral imperative of this great nation, and they have insulted it and the great men who created it by punishing individuals for their success. The message of the government is, "you must apologize for your success to all those who haven't achieved. After all, it's not their fault they're not as smart, capable, or driven as you." That is at the core of all systems of taxation, the punishment of achievement.
If you were to ask me what is the greatest crime of the industrialists, I would say that they willingly allow the government to extort their profits, which would have been much better served improving the organization and humanity as a result.

--
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
Re:libertarian by aduzik · 2003-09-26 17:53 · Score: 1

Alas, I can't. If I had the money that the government takes from me for social security, I could invest in a bigger retirement fund, which is guaranteed to be exponentially larger than social security. I want to opt-out of social security altogether, because I don't want anyone else deciding how I spend my money. In countries that allow this, usually about 90% opt out of all government retirement plans. I wonder why?

--
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
Re:libertarian by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 17:57 · Score: 0

Bullshit.
Re:libertarian by aduzik · 2003-09-26 18:11 · Score: 1

I haven't gotten rich by any action of the government, either. Are you suggesting that my existence is taxable, that I somehow owe other people for my existence?
But at the same time, your taxation argument demands that I owe other people for their existence. "We exist and are too lazy to work. Feed us. We deserve it. We were born." What you are suggesting is that no one has a fundamental *right* to exist, because everyone else does. Do you see the contradiction here? You think it's our responsibility to arm our oppressors!
I reject your assertion that the government has benefitted me. If they have, have they benefitted me for the exact amount of my taxes? Otherwise, I think I missed something somewhere, because I think I'm getting ripped off.
As for your racist argument, yes, my parents are white. But you'll never convince me that race is a means of evaluating a person's worth. My evaluation of a person is based solely on my assessment of their value. I have a high opinion of any person who produces more than they consume. A person's worthiness of opportunity can't be determined by race -- what practical effects does race have on a person's ability? None whatever. Racism is an atrocity to individuals who deserve to be treated like the capable people they are. It's an injustice to all of us.
My answer to your final question is, "does their need somehow give them the right to seize my wealth -- which I have earned and they have not -- by force?" If you *choose* not to work, not to produce, then you have *chosen* to starve and freeze yourself. They've chosen to freeze and starve their children. They apparently hate the lives of themselves and their children so much that they won't even do the bare minimum to ensure their survival. They are horrible parents, horrible people, and deserve to punished for Your need is no claim on my ability, particularly not at the point of a gun.
What I wish some socialist would tell me some day is by what right they seize my wealth to give it to those who don't deserve it. Perhaps then I would understand the motivation of such people. I would also really like to know what exactly it is that the government's doing that's so great that is worth about 50% of my money. People are poorer, people are sicker, and people are worse off than when I was allowed to keep my money. But your faith in the system won't let you see this. When you put aside your blind faith in government and look at the cold, discomforting facts, you'll find that your liberal government has failed to do what it set out to do. For all of their efforts, people are suffering more. Their methods don't work. They've never worked, and they're never going to work. Give it up! They're hurting everyone and helping no one!

--
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
Re:libertarian by some+damn+guy · 2003-09-26 18:36 · Score: 1

Libertarians are the only political group with a consistent message -- freedom from the tyranny of government.

Their consistent message seems to be a big immature temper tantrum to me. People need to realize that governments do certain things much better than the private sector and that rich people shouldn't bite the hand that fucking feeds them. An educated population, a stable and efficient financial system, a solid and reliable infrustructure, relatively safe streets- how the hell could you get rich without all of this?

There are still a lot of places in the world were the only way to get rich is to steal from others and kill anyone who tries to stop you. People who think they aren't being rewarded enough for their hard work and inteligence should try going somewhere where the world where the only thing that is rewarded is ruthlessness. Watch how long they manage to stay rich there.

There are lots of places in the world where you can pay lower taxes. Just remember, whereever you go you're going to have someone with a lot of guns asking you for money and not taking no for an answer. I personally think you could do far worse than Uncle Sam. The legally codified "ownership" of everything you have is made possible by this government, so give the tynanny rap a rest.
Re:libertarian by aduzik · 2003-09-26 19:16 · Score: 1

Everything the government has put its hand to that should be done by private citizens has failed miserably. Take, for example, schools. Why do private schools exist? Because for those who can afford them, they know that the government way of education sucks. They want something better than "good enough" for their kids.
What our taxes are paying for, primarily, are things that the government has no business in. I've said many times that I'm willing to pay for the protection of my freedom -- police, military, and courts. I'm not willing to pay for inferior schools, lousy streets, the welfare state, environmental programs, etc., etc. The government sponsors tobacco farmer subsidies, but also supports stop-smoking programs. These programs contradict each other! We could achieve the same effect by spending *nothing.* I think it ought to be my choice what government programs -- if any -- I support.
You wouldn't go to the grocery store to put food in your house that your family doesn't like, so why should I be paying for programs that offend me? Ask any person if there's some government program that they don't like, and there you'll find a person who is made unhappy by paying taxes. Let the people who want this stuff pay for it. I'll buy the things I really want for myself. I'm not a whiny brat, I'm a person who hates to see his effort go to waste.
If the government didn't waste money, I'd have no problem paying my taxes, but they do. That means that the effort it took me to produce that money is going down the drain. On average, six months of my effort (due to the 50% net tax we all pay, when you add it all up), is wasted. If you'd like, I'd rather have a six month vacation, or better yet, the benefit of all twelve months of my effort. Who needs communism? America's halfway there already!

--
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
Re:libertarian by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 01:34 · Score: 0

You know I have never known anyone that had to choose between eating and paying the rent. And yes I have lived in some pretty poor places in my life.

I take that back, I knew one family that did, but they were all way over weight and probably pissing most of their money away on food they didn't need anyway.

The fact is dispite what you want to beleive the only people that are starving in America are people who are too stupid to go to the food bank or their local church and pick up the food that people have VOLENTERED to give.
Re:libertarian by Clzame · 2003-09-27 02:03 · Score: 1

Right on This is the core issue. When we continue to let no accoutability prevail we get what we've got. That strange feeling you have is the unaccountable hand groping in your pocket.
Re:libertarian by Clzame · 2003-09-27 02:10 · Score: 1

And while you were listing services you forgot to list the Department of wipe my ASS.Hey I didn't get my allocation of TP this month ? what Happened? The Tax man says" I never meet a Dollar of yours I didn't like to spend"
Re:libertarian by Clzame · 2003-09-27 02:23 · Score: 1

Again you are right on. Instead of so many occilating around the issues, you are looking directly at the foundation of our system and why it works and why it isn't working. "What is lacking in the current government is a fundamental recognition of their purpose." The purpose of these commentaries is to identify the Questions. The answers are easy once we get to the correct questions.
Re:libertarian by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 02:50 · Score: 0

You want income tax raised by 5%, eh?

No one is stopping you from refusing your refund, and giving more of your money to Uncle Sam. They'll take it.

A 5% income tax raise would be pretty unpopular and unlikely to get anywhere, but you as an individual can effectively raise the amount of tax you are paying.
Re:libertarian by alex_ant · 2003-09-27 04:40 · Score: 1

I won't pay 5% more by my own will, because I'm too selfish. If my tax were raised 5%, I wouldn't groan too much, though. Of course I would demand some accountability from the gov't, and I would like to see some results from that money. No reason supporting a progressive tax has to mean supporting the gov't pissing money away. But you're right, it would be unpopular and unlikely to happen.
Re:libertarian by alex_ant · 2003-09-27 05:50 · Score: 1

No, your existence is not taxable. I don't see the contradiction. You have just as much right to exist as anyone else does. Raising your taxes by, say, 5% != terminating your existence. Don't get me wrong, I want you to be rich, even filthy rich, because the richer you are, the more power you have to make society better. (The more you can afford to invest in things and pay taxes that will help society.)

You think you're getting ripped off by the government? Let's see how the government has benefitted you. Property and land ownership rights, let's take them away and see how well you do without them. If we took away your right to safety, would you trust your personal bodyguards enough to not turn on you? In a way, you owe everything you have, and everything you are, to those rights. To have those rights and to be rich is a pretty good deal.

I never meant to suggest that race is a measure of a person's worth. I think that all people of any race are equally invaluable. But race does tie in to social factors (class, mobility) and economic factors in interesting ways. Your political beliefs, for example, are a function of your economic class, and therefore, indirectly, your race, which is also related to your class. I don't even know you, but I already guessed a few things about you correctly:

- You're white
- You're male
- You were born to well-off parents

Now I will make a few more guesses:

- You've spent less than 48 total hours in your life volunteering with lower classes
- You've spent less than 48 total hours in your life associating with the poor
- You have few/no friends in lower economic classes
- You have black acquaintances, but no black friends
- You have a secure future, but are not, deep-down, truly and sincerely happy

I hope it's obvious why all of this is relevant. It's interesting that there are so few black and Hispanic libertarians. It's interesting that there are so few poor libertarians of any race/ethnicity. Is it that most poor people, or most blacks/Hispanics are leeches? Or is it that different socioeconomic groups are able to see society from different vantage points? Apparently you don't realize the racism present in your own measure of a person's worth:

1. You have a high opinion of any person who produces more than they consume.
2. Of all people who produce more than they consume, the proportion of whites to other races/ethnicities is much higher than the general population.
3. You generally have a higher opinion of whites.

I'm sure you will protest that the fact that most of the people who produce a lot more than they consume are white is merely coincidence. But how can it be merely coincidental when whites actually comprise less than 50% of the US population? Obviously there's more going on here than you're acknowledging.

I can see the logic behind your opinion that "voluntarily" choosing not to work is a "voluntary" choice to die, even if I strongly disagree with it. Let me point out, though, some other "irresponsible" actions in a purely libertarian society that constitute a "choice to die":

- Not being able to get a job
- There not being any jobs for people of X qualifications in X region within X miles
- Having a job that doesn't pay enough to afford basic necessities
- Being sufficiently socially awkward that nobody will hire you
- Having a mental or physical illness that precludes working a normal work day
- Having a car break down, not being able to get to work, getting fired, not being able to get a reference from your employer, not getting hired anywhere else because it's the second time that's happened in 6 months and you're seen as too "irresponsible"
- And so on

But you don't have firsthand experience with any of that, and can't relate to it, because by golly, if you made it, anyone can, even though you're smarter, had rich parents, went to quality private school, were born with the right skin color...

I was especially surprised to hea

just ignore the recession, folks by LuxFX · 2003-09-26 09:53 · Score: 1

That's a great way of encouraging people to spend more money -- make things more expensive!

--
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'

Thats exactly my point. by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 09:54 · Score: 1

George Bush is not conservative. A conservative believes in smaller government. Bush has his own agenda, I repeat George Bush is not a conservative.

Will conservatives please stop voting for him, vote libertarian for all I care, but if you want smaller government and lower state taxes you know damn well Bush is not the guy.

How did the tax cut hurt the economy? Federal tax cut == state tax increases == damaged local economy.

You cannot just cut taxes by a trillion dollars over night, you have to slowly let states downsize their government, Bush did not fund states to give them time to resize government and that is why they are forced to hike taxes to pay for expenses which they have been paying for over the last 5-10 years.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Re:Thats exactly my point. by the_2nd_coming · 2003-09-26 10:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

the trillion dollors was over 10 years. this year was only 50 billion. there is no way 50 billion would have help all the states, mabye the small states, but the big 20 where all teh people live, NO WAY would it have helped.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Re:Thats exactly my point. by wayward_son · 2003-09-26 12:19 · Score: 1

If the states didn't spend all the damn money on pork projects, scholarship programs and other spending initiatives, then they wouldn't be in this predicament.

Second of all, your math makes no sense. If the feds cut taxes and the states raise them, then it's a wash.

And by the way, no one has to hike taxes. In fact, hiking taxes is one of the worst things you can do. The drop in revenue at the state level was not caused by tax cuts, it was caused by a decrease in economic productivity. Higher taxes decrease economic productivity. Likewise, cutting taxes, specifically capital gains taxes and income taxes, increases economic productivity. This increased productivity leads to people making more money which means they pay more in taxes. It's called the Laffer Curve, which you might remember Ben Stein talk about in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

As for Bush not being a conservative, you are right. He is a Big Government Republican, like his father before him. (Fortunately, this one has the good sense not to raise taxes like his father did)
Re:Thats exactly my point. by DunbarTheInept · 2003-09-26 12:59 · Score: 1

A conservative believes in smaller government.

No. In politics it means someone who wants to things to continue similarly to how they were done in the past. What this actually works out to mean will vary based on the history where they live. A conservative in the USA is different from one in Italy or China or Africa.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Thats exactly my point. by Igmuth · 2003-09-26 15:42 · Score: 1

No, he just drastically cut them and the proceeds to spend a pile of money.

Which is the better policy?

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by mcwop · 2003-09-26 09:55 · Score: 1

If you just cut federal taxes all it does is cause state taxes to rise, if you cut state taxes and raise federal taxes on everyone same situation.

Look at it this way. By cutting Federal taxes then the states have more room to raise theirs.

--

"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

Sales Tax Bad, Period by GrouchoMarx · 2003-09-26 09:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

No no no! Internet sales taxes are bad, but not for the reason people think. Well, not quite. In truth ALL sales tax is inherently bad.

Sales tax is inherently regressive. A loaf of bred (or book from Amazon) costs the same regardless of whether I make 10k a year or 500k a year. Put simply, the cost of living does not scale with income.

Increasing the cost of the bread/book via sales tax increases it for everyone, but that's not equal taxation. A difference of $1 extra in taxes is a larger percentage of the disposable income of a person making 10k per year than it is for someone making 500k a year. So in fact, a sales tax hurts the poor and middle class MORE than it hurts the rich.

No wonder so many rich people like it.

Conversely, even a flat income tax scales the burden with income, so that higher income brackets also pay for increases in taxes. A progressive income tax is better still because then it scales the rate so that the burden of taxation is felt equally by everyone, but that's another discussion.

So no, don't put a sales tax on the Internet. Don't put a sales tax on traditional stores, either. STOP CUTTING MY INCOME TAXES AND CUT MY SALES TAX INSTEAD!!!

With an all-income-tax system, everyone bears the burden of taxation equally. Sales tax makes the poor bear the burden more than the rich.

(And by "burden of taxation", I mean whatever the tax rate happens to be and whatever it's used for. Those are separate issues.)

--

--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?

Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by liam193 · 2003-09-26 10:07 · Score: 1

Actually your correct in most cases. However, I live in PA. We have a sales tax that is not regressive. It's applied to what the state calls "non-essential" items. The basic clothing and food items are taxed. If I buy a loaf of bread as you point out, I don't pay sales tax. If I go to a restaurant, the prepared food is considered "non-essential" so I pay sales tax. If I buy a sterio, I pay tax. If I buy a pair of jeans, I don't. The point is that the poor generally spend most of their income on "essential" items. In this approach, a person with a small income may pay no tax at all based on the fact that they don't buy goods that aren't necesssary. People with larger incomes will generally spend more on non-essential items.

I personally would prefer to have this sales tax raised and have the income tax in PA taken away entirely. I would also be in favor of the same sort of tax at the federal and local levels. Paying even 30% (~20-25 for federal, ~8-10 state, ~1-2 local) or more in tax on non-essential items would be better and easier (cheaper for the gov't) to collect than the millions of 1040 forms every year. And when you say this people get shocked at the percentage, but imagine if you took home everything you made and only payed tax when you bought something that you really didn't "need" to survive. You would be able to afford the 30%+.
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by antv · 2003-09-26 10:17 · Score: 1

Also, very important from economist's standpoint, sales tax discourages sales. I work as both programmer and sysadmin for several small businesses in NY (thanks W for making my former employer move overseas), and most of them try to sell to any state other than NY, because with NY sales tax they can't make a profit. Sales taxes hurt economy, big time.

BTW, taxing poor and middle class less also makes economic sense, because it influences their purchasing decisions. The more money they have, the more things they buy, the more money seller makes, i.e. it helps economy grow.

--
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by TheShadow · 2003-09-26 10:18 · Score: 1

Ok. Calling sales tax a regressive tax is a load of crap. Yeah, if you look at a single purchase and compare that to the income of two individuals, the person with the higher income pays a smaller percentage of his income. However, the person with the higher income is likely to make more purchases than the other person and therefore end up paying more in sales tax than the other guy.

Plus, if you really want income tax instead of sales tax... you need to have your head examined.

With income tax, you are taxed before you even see the money. It doesn't matter what you intend to do with that money, it is taxed. Gone. You never see it. If there was no income tax (only sales and/or use taxes) you would have a choice. Buy product X or save that money for your child's college education. And you would get to do it before you are taxed. Think about how much better off everyone would be if they were given that opportunity to save. Instead you have take out loans for things like that and pay interest which is almost like being taxed.

--

--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by rossz · 2003-09-26 10:39 · Score: 1

You have a belief that I find just plain ridiculous. That just because someone makes more money, they should be taxed at a higher rate. Why? There isn't any good reason. Let's give examples. Please excuse the oversimplification.

Let's assume a 10% tax on income. So a $20,000 income is taxes for $2,000. A $200,000 income is taxed for $20,000. Seems perfectly fair. The higher income person pays as much tax as the lower income person makes. The more you make, you more you pay.

Now for a progressive tax. Let's stick with 10% for the lower income, but jump it to 40% for the higher income. Now the $200,000 is taxed for $80,000.

Is making more money inherently wrong? No. Does making less money make you a better person deserving of special privileges? No. The progressive tax is nothing but an arbitrary and unfair taxation system that politicians implemented because they knew they could get away with it.

Progressive taxes should be declared unconstitutional (other countries can ignore this) since the Constitution states, "All taxes must be uniform."

Personally, I think the income tax should be dumped completely and we switch to a national sales tax (internet stuff included). Tax consumption, not production. Let people save their money in the bank or invest in a business or stocks and not get taxed, but buy that Lexus or yacht and you pay taxes.

We shouldn't give the government any ideas. They'll say their implementing a national sales tax and will slowly phase out the income tax, but we know that would never happen. We'd just end up getting yet another tax piled on our already oversized burden.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:41 · Score: 1, Informative

Income tax is not any worse than sales tax in that regard. There are plenty of deductions that reduce your tax for spending on "worthy" things, such as charitable contributions, 401k, and college savings (501?).

But income tax has the advantage that you see how much the government takes from you. (How much do _you_ pay in sales tax?) And, you only calculate it once a year. No need for mental multiplication before every purchase.

If I were running a small business on the web, I'd be very worried about the sales tax proposals. It's a PITA handling paperwork for one state, forget about learning 50 different tax codes for the U.S. plus European VAT plus Canadian sales tax plus....it's doable for a big company, but it would just about kill smaller companies.
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by Sangui5 · 2003-09-26 10:46 · Score: 1

While sales taxes discourage sales, income tax discourages *both* sales and investment. Given the pathetically low level of savings in this country, it makes a lot more sense to cut income taxes than it does to cut sales taxes.

Sales levels do not make any systemic change in the economy. Stimulating sales (aggregate demand) is a short term fix to economic problems, and while it is a short term fix that can dull the pain until the next upswing of the business cycle, it cannot and will not make the economy "grow" in any real, permanent sense. The size of the economy, especially in a modern, high-value-added economy like the US's, is dependent almost entirely on capital spending. On investment. On money spent on factories, technology, and education. Not money spent on consumable goods.

Now, while I like low sales taxes too, given that there have to be taxes, a sales tax is a tax that does the least long-term harm to the economy. Given a choice, it is the least of two evils.
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by NineNine · 2003-09-26 11:14 · Score: 1

You sir, are my hero. If only I could add more friends, you'd be one.
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2003-09-26 11:47 · Score: 1

There is a _little_ bit of progressive taxation involved. I can say that usually basic necessity food items are usually not taxed, like bread, meat, cheese, milk, etc. Luxuries like candy and restaurant food often is. And that people with more money usually buy a lot more anyway, so in the end, the overall bite out of their income may end up being the same or more.
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by nanodik · 2003-09-26 12:09 · Score: 1

Groucho Marx! Try Karl Marx.

You at least got the last 3/4 of you statement correct. Tax bad, period.

A progressive income tax is better still because then it scales the rate so that the burden of taxation is felt equally by everyone, but that's another discussion..

Actually, this just gives whoring politicians the ability to tell the unwashed masses that they will deliver a chicken to every pot by screwing over the "rich". It's funny that politicians will try to tax social ills to make them go away (i.e. vice taxes on gambling, cigarettes, beer) yet they seem to think that taxing income will, er, raise everyone's standard of living! I like to shock people in conversations sometimes by proposing a "Poor Tax". Just as you want to convince people to stop smoking and pay for medical bills caused by tobacco by taxing tobacco products, a "Poor Tax" would discourage people from being unproductive. The way to get rid of poverty is not to subsidize it (ie. welfare), but to TAX it! Besides, the poor use more social services than the rich so shouldn't they be forced to foot the bill?

Just something to think about.
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by icebike · 2003-09-26 12:18 · Score: 1

"Sales tax is inherently regressive. "

So what. There are more and more people who
no longer buy into the "progressive" tax scheme.
Mostly people who read the constitution. You should try it sometime.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by DunbarTheInept · 2003-09-26 12:22 · Score: 1

Increasing the cost of the bread/book via sales tax increases it for everyone, but that's not equal taxation. A difference of $1 extra in taxes is a larger percentage of the disposable income of a person making 10k per year than it is for someone making 500k a year.

I might be going out on a limb here, but I suspect that people making more money might actually make costlier purchases. The sales tax on buying a Learjet is going to be huge if it's the same percentage as the tax on buying a bicycle. (Oh, and groceries are typically exempt from sales tax unless it's "luxury" extra food items like candy, so your bread example is bullshit.) What you are actually complaining about is the kind of sales tax that applies to only RETIAL purchases and not the kind that applies to all sales equally. A true equal flat sales tax would be more fair because it would tax everyone according to their income just like a flat income tax would. The problem is that the current sales tax systems tend to only tax retail purchases and not the large-scale purchases that rich people make. As such they aren't true sales taxes.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by egomaniac · 2003-09-26 12:23 · Score: 1

Let's assume a 10% tax on income. So a $20,000 income is taxes for $2,000. A $200,000 income is taxed for $20,000. Seems perfectly fair. The higher income person pays as much tax as the lower income person makes. The more you make, you more you pay.

Now for a progressive tax. Let's stick with 10% for the lower income, but jump it to 40% for the higher income. Now the $200,000 is taxed for $80,000.

Is making more money inherently wrong? No. Does making less money make you a better person deserving of special privileges? No. The progressive tax is nothing but an arbitrary and unfair taxation system that politicians implemented because they knew they could get away with it.

I make way more than $200K a year. If anyone has a right to complain about progressive taxes, I do. And yet I fully support them.

The simple fact is that most of my income is, strictly speaking, unnecessary. I don't need a fancy home theater or a swimming pool to survive. Only a relatively small percentage of my paycheck goes towards food, shelter, and other necessities. Someone living at the poverty line, though, needs to devote every cent they have towards making ends meet, and they simply don't have any money to spare.

To bring in the same amount of money using a flat tax that the IRS gets from the current progressive tax, the tax percentage would be less than I'm currently paying and more than what someone at the poverty line is paying. It would be giving me more money and the poor person less.

And that's the problem. I don't need more money. Sure, I wouldn't complain about a ten percent increase in my yearly earnings, but I don't need it. A poor person, on the other hand, can't spare any more than they already are. Taxing them more and taxing me less is equivalent to taking money from the poor and giving it to me. How can you possibly reason that that is a good thing? In what universe does that make sense?

Despite the fact that I stand to gain significantly from a flat tax, I'm still fiercely against it.

--
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by evilviper · 2003-09-26 13:27 · Score: 1

I might be going out on a limb here, but I suspect that people making more money might actually make costlier purchases.

Reality doesn't bear that out. It's been found that the richer someone is, the less they pay for the same products. There are many means by which they save money, but they are besides the point.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by wayward_son · 2003-09-26 13:40 · Score: 1

I believe the wealthy should pay their fair share - no more, no less.

For income tax, a low flat tax with few loopholes would be best. The first $20,000 ($40,000 for married households) would be tax free. Add $5,000 to the tax free limit for each dependent.

Everything after that would be taxed at %15.

Cut the payroll tax rate, but eliminate the payroll tax cap. Mulitmillion dollar CEO's could save Social Security and/or give everyone else a tax cut. (Or you could eliminate the payroll tax altogether. Fine by me.)

Don't tax capital gains. Capital gains are pure economic growth, and you do not want to discourage that. Just because mostly wealthy people pay them does not mean that it is a good tax.

Eliminate the death tax, and the don't tax dividends twice. That money has already been taxed. Once again, just because mostly wealthy people pay them does not mean that it is a good tax.

You can adjust the rates and dollar amounts as needed. My point is that how you tax is as much, if not more important that how much you tax.
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by wayward_son · 2003-09-26 13:43 · Score: 1

And one more: Kill the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit). It's a nice acronym for welfare. Just because the EITC helps the poor does not mean that it's a good tax program.

If you want to be nice to the poor, you can eliminate the sales taxes on non-prepared food.
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by Malcontent · 2003-09-26 14:48 · Score: 1

The reason a progressive tax exists is because the middle class and the poor do not make enough money to fund the expenditures of the country. If you had a flat tax you could not afford to invade iraq, or subsidize farmers, or give sweetheart deals to haliburton.

You have to get the money from someplace.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by rossz · 2003-09-26 16:11 · Score: 1

I suggest you learn who actually pays the most taxes. The middle class pays almost all of it for the simple reason that most of the country is middle class. The poor pay virtually none. The rich pay a small percentage, but not because they aren't paying taxes. They pay only a tiny portion of all taxes simply beause there aren't that many rich people.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by bruthasj · 2003-09-26 17:00 · Score: 1

You, my friend, are obviously not familiar with sales tax. Sales tax, just like income tax, comes in various flavors and levels. Using the cost of bread is mistaken as it misrepresents that sales tax covers all purchases from A to Z. This is wrong. In most states, that I am familiar with, basic units of life like food without services are not taxed. Bread is not taxed; nor should it ever be. Whoppers and Big Macs are taxed, because they come with a service and are *not* basic needs!

ALL taxes are bad. The worst is Income; do some research on the topic and come back with some better arguments. Thanks.
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by Malcontent · 2003-09-26 17:49 · Score: 1

Huh? I don't think so.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 18:09 · Score: 0

So start supporting whatever cause you feel is worth your time and money but please, get the fuck out of my wallet because I don't feel as charitable as you do.

If you don't trust yourself and require threat of imprisonment to support " a worthy cause' then you are a fucking hypocrite and that is your fucking problem - not mine.
Fair enough ?
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by TwistedGreen · 2003-09-26 18:17 · Score: 1

I didn't think that the sale of staple food items like bread were taxed.
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 19:25 · Score: 0

Yes, well, it's the middle class that's the problem. If you can count on any group to be more short-sighted and self-abosrbed, it is they. The rich are no threat, you're right, since they are few. The middle class, on the other hand, are powerfully ignorant and foolishly believe that the interests of the rich are their interests -- they are, collectively, the most poisoned and pernicious creatures God hath created... and yet, like the denizens of Orwell's 1984, you have to feel conflicted about them since they are both the victim and the perpetuator of their own tyrrany.
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by Fjandr · 2003-09-27 03:59 · Score: 1

And wouldn't it be great if the government couldn't afford to wage war, susidize farmers, or fund sweetheart deals? Gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. :)
Re:Sales Tax Bad, Period by ted_rust · 2003-09-27 15:36 · Score: 1

I'm not quite sure your argument is as sound as it seems.

Taxation of items at sale seems like a great idea to me. This ensures that /consumers/ are taxed appropriately for what they /consume/. In your argument, you state that the taxes on a loaf of bread would be unfair to a lower income family because of the ratio to the dollars they earn. However, consumption does not stop at a package of bread. If you argue that everyone must have that bread to survive, than they all share the same burden /up to that point/. A wealthy person is not likely to eat Wonder Bread (or some other cheap-o bread), nor are they apt to live in the same size house as a poor person. They also won't have the same car. (A lower income person may not even have a car or a house.) So, when the rich guy buys his Porsche GT3, he's gonna pay a lot more money than the guy that just bought the $8k Kia econo-box.

Are there ways to get around this? Yes. But, careful consideration of import taxation could keep the rich guy from buying his Porsche in Germany and shipping it over to save the sales tax.

Maybe my thinking is flawed, but I think that taxing people at the time they spend their money seems logical. People that are just getting by will do just that. People with lots of money that want silk toilet paper (exaggerating) and gold-plated toothbrushes will have to pay their normal extravagant prices, plus contribute a more substantial amount of taxes.

My "too sense."

--
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to red, gold & green)

of course by rwven · 2003-09-26 09:55 · Score: 1

I wouldnt complain about taxes on the internet. The money has to come from SOMEWHERE. I say if there's a tax, we deal with it and move on. Our measly 0-8% sales taxes that our states charge is nothing... Most of canada charges 12% or more. Most/some european countries charge even more than that. It's really not as bad as everyone is making it out to be.

taxing e-mails however would be terrible if they put that in place. (OT i know) i really hope they never implement a tax on that... time will tell though...

Re:of course by dynamiteweb · 2003-09-26 10:03 · Score: 0

Don't you ever read your forwards???

E-mails are not going to be taxed, there is going to be a fee from the U.S. Postal service. In fact, there is a bill in office right now, called U.R. ID10T -- Call your congressman/woman right now and tell them to vote NO to any e-mail fees!
Oh yes, and make sure and send this on to at least 99 friends or you will have bad luck for a week and Bill Gates will not send your check for 1,401,401
Re:of course by rwven · 2003-09-26 18:59 · Score: 1

if you bothered to read my reply carefully you'll notice that it was a side topic. the issue was not about e-mail. it was about internet sales tax, i just interjected a comment about how they taxing e-mails would be terrible...

you'll notice i even put a "O.T." notice on that part....

sheesh, read before you flame....
Re:of course by dynamiteweb · 2003-09-27 01:48 · Score: 0

Sorry dude, it was a joke... I hate getting those email forwards from people who think there really is a law before congress on e-mail taxation... peace
Re:of course by rwven · 2003-09-27 04:31 · Score: 1

lol apologies as well. i think i was in bad mood mode there for a min :-D

Constitution by Dan+Farina · 2003-09-26 09:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

As I recall, States were not allowed to levy tariffs and such against each other. Doesn't imposing taxes on a particular method of transaction fly in the face of the rules that define us as a union and have been tested in the past in courts?

This is the price we must pay for the mess the Iraqi war caused budget-wise. Otherwise there would be the possibility that the federal government could assist the states, and businesses would not have to be so conservative because of the uncertainty lurking over the horizon. Instead we must bend the rules to work around this serious lack of funds.

Re:Constitution by TheShadow · 2003-09-26 10:12 · Score: 2, Informative

This is the price we must pay for the mess the Iraqi war caused budget-wise.

I don't know but $400 billion for prescription drugs for seniors (who statistically have more disposable income than any other age group in the country) seems like a bigger waste of my money.

--

--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
Re:Constitution by inertia187 · 2003-09-26 10:13 · Score: 1

This is the price we must pay for the mess the Iraqi war caused budget-wise.

But wasn't it worth it?

--
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Re:Constitution by Bull999999 · 2003-09-26 10:15 · Score: 1

Seniors are the largest group of voters so they get prescription drugs while young geeks get patent laws.

--
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Re:Constitution by Experiment+626 · 2003-09-26 10:33 · Score: 3, Informative

"As I recall, States were not allowed to levy tariffs and such against each other."

"No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." (Article I, Section 9.5)

I have not really heard the proponents of such taxes try to justify their scheme in Constitutional terms. I suppose they would try to make some argument that this was originally intended to keep the exporter of the articles from having to pay taxes to the originating state as the goods go out, and now the exporter is collecting taxes to send to the destination state to make up for the revenue they supposedly lost because the goods weren't purchased locally. But this is really questionable logic, whether I buy something from California and get hit by taxes that wind up in the coffers of California or of my own state, someone is placing a questionable tax on the export of goods, and some state is infringing into the Federal purview of interstate commerce.
Re:Constitution by Dan+Farina · 2003-09-26 10:51 · Score: 1

hmm. I'm going to call you on that one, and ask you produce the study that states that. It may be true, but the term "disposable income" is a very flexable one, so no one can really say a whole lot about it.

Wouldn't your income go down in your later years, and your expenses for medical care go up? The only expense I could see going down is the fact that your children, if you have any, have since moved away and become independent.

It defies logic, working with this information.
Re:Constitution by Dan+Farina · 2003-09-26 10:53 · Score: 1

I still question if the war was really worth it at this point in time. Regardless if it was worth it or not, it is clear that the people of the United States (and indeed,the world) were lied to about the reasons and justifications for the war and/or the certainty with which we held our allegations of WMD presence.

Saddam was a nut, no doubt, but our troops and our economy may have just suffered more than it was really worth. I would suggest that North Korea would be a bigger threat to national security, if that was really our metric of priority when it comes to intervention. I really cannot fathom why we chose Iraq to go first, unless we expected war to be so cheap that oil could pay for it in a reasonable time, which would have been a foolishly risky sentiment in our fragile condition.

We can't quite apply the q-word yet, as our actions don't seem to be futile, just expensive.
Re:Constitution by inertia187 · 2003-09-26 10:58 · Score: 1

If your next-door neighbor was accused of having a meth-lab, but when the ATF raided the place found only a freezer full of human remains, would you be as judgmental?

--
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Re:Constitution by AnotherBlackHat · 2003-09-26 11:04 · Score: 2, Informative

And don't forget Article I, Section 10.2

"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."

On second though, go ahead and forget it - the people arguing in favor of interstate sales taxes clearly have.

-- this is not a .sig
Re:Constitution by NortWind · 2003-09-26 11:17 · Score: 1

I think Article 1, section 9 is more to the point!
"No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. "
Not much wiggle room there.
Re:Constitution by Dan+Farina · 2003-09-26 11:20 · Score: 1

We may have to eat our words then, as it says here that WITH the permission of congress the states are allowed to charge each other sales tax and duty, and are prohibited otherwise.

Hence, a bill, by congress, may be fair play. But I don't think I have enough information.
Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 12:19 · Score: 0

"No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress."

Looks like they can actually collect a tax on interstate or international trade - but only the federal tax that they must then hand to the feds.

Internet and mail order business, between a company without a presence in the buyer's state - and the buyer not a resident of the seller's state - should therefore be untaxable by either state.

So you'd think, hmm, then they'll just have a _federal_ sales tax which then then distribute to the states (this assumes an awful lot - would you trust the feds to give that back fairly?)

But no! There's also this line: "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." Oops. No federal sales tax on sales between the states.
Re:Constitution by Sabalon · 2003-09-26 15:48 · Score: 1

Which goes to what it said about the supremes saying a state can only impose the tax if the business has a physical presence in the state. Barnes & Noble probably has a store in every state, so it would be liable. Amazon doesn't...so only in a handful of states.

Interesting if you colocate servers...wonder how that works.
Re:Constitution by Fjandr · 2003-09-27 04:06 · Score: 1

Well, htey could make that argument, but it's clearly documented that the reason was to prevent states from engaging in economic warfare with one another.
Re:Constitution by dave1g · 2003-09-27 06:47 · Score: 1

"without the Consent of the Congress"

arent they asking for the consent of Congress?

Is this really possible? by Cali+Thalen · 2003-09-26 09:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

How will this be enforced? If I buy something from Dealware, and the company ships it to me...how would California collect the tax? How would they even know?

Is every vendor going to have to start keeping tax records for every state they do business with?

And if Vendor X in Delaware decides to tell California 'screw you' - what can California do? (realistically I mean). Issue a warrant? File a civil suit?

--
Chaos, panic, disorder...my work here is done.

Re:Is this really possible? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:11 · Score: 0

Most major US online vendors are already setup to collect VAT for sales to private EU customers, where they do have to keep tax records for every EU member state (as VAT rates differ between them).
See this slashdot story.
Re:Is this really possible? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 12:29 · Score: 0

Let's hope the government doesn't just get a big ol' Paypal account and skim a percentage directly off the credit card payment...

You're going to get more of the same by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

More taxes, less liberty, more gun grabbing, more DMCA enforcement, a bigger drug war, more jackbooted thugs, more affirmative racism, bigger welfare checks for Israel, more foreign wars, less jobs, and more certainly more slavery.

Welcome to the police state, pay your taxes and do as you're told. The constitution has long been obsolete.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 09:58 · Score: 1

Why do I want higher state taxes? Unlike federal taxes, state taxes tax the poor, federal taxes usually come back to me so we poor and middle class usually dont have to pay much federal tax. We get tax benefits.

So what is the result of Bush's tax cuts? Well now the poor pay more taxes than ever due to the rising SALES taxes and state taxes, property taxes and income taxes.

I'd rather just have a higher federal taxes since I dont pay federal taxes anyway.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Wrong... by toupsie · 2003-09-26 09:58 · Score: 1

States thought the gravy train of the 90s was never going to end. Very stupid. There was no way the bubble of 90s could be maintained. Basing an economy on the business plans of sock puppets selling pet food was foolish.

Instead of maintaining a sane level of spending, the states went nuts and blew their surpluses to buy votes from special interest groups of each wing. If you look at states like Colorado, you will see that they do not have this problem. The reason? They have a constitutional amendment that prevents them from spending more than the rate of increased inflation combined with a modified for population growth.

Instead of raising taxes, states and the federal government need to cut spending, BIG TIME! Don't get me wrong, Bush is not guilty for cutting taxes, he is guilty for not restraining spending growth. However, I doubt you care from your rhetoric what Bush does. No matter what this President does, you will insist he is evil man not unlike the Clinton haters of the 90s.

Government should be restricted like my family. If my family does not have enough money to maintain our lifestyle, we do not go to our next door neighbor's house, kick in the door and demand they fund our wants. We see what we can cut from our budget to keep within our income.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

Re:Wrong... by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 10:16 · Score: 1

Its all about what Bush does. Name one thing hes done right so far, just one.

From a conservative viewpoint he has not done anything conservative, he didnt outlaw abortion, instead hes busy trying to prevent stem cell research and stop gays from getting married. He did not accomplish a damn thing but his tax cuts.

Tell me what hes done, government is bigger, taxes are higher, 3 million jobs were lost, this isnt political ,Reagan didnt do this bad, George Bush is just a miserable failure who cant do anything right and it has nothing to do with his party or politics, It has everything to do with his stupidity.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Re:Wrong... by toupsie · 2003-09-26 10:21 · Score: 1

He has made my paycheck higher without me begging my employer for the change. Thus allowing me to keep more of what I earn every month. My state and local taxes have not gone up.
How many of those 3 million jobs were coding web pages for BS web based companies in the 90s? How many of them were from corporations that were corrupt as sin during the 90s? How many of those jobs relate to the tech industry? I lost jobs during Clinton's administration but I have never lost one under Bush.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Re:Wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 13:53 · Score: 0

Howard Deans universal healthcare would make your paycheck bigger too, you'd pay less money for healthcare and suddenly you'd have more money.
Re:Wrong... by toupsie · 2003-09-26 16:39 · Score: 1

Not really. My employer provides my healthcare. There is no such thing as free healthcare. Mine is a part of my contract.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

All the State's fault by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:58 · Score: 0

When the boom was on, all the states grew fat with income on capitial gains and dividends. Their programs also grew fat. No money was saved; government simply grew bigger. At the height New Jersey was taking in MORE in capital gains and dividends than the sum total of all corporate taxes being paid. When the market dried up, these revenue sources disappeared overnight. Always trust that crackwhore politicians will spend up all the money and blame someone else for the problem.

Inevitable but for key reasons... by Dukeofshadows · 2003-09-26 09:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Remember, the drop in the economy, unwillingness of the state governments to cut back on politically expedient expeditures (whether for the people as a whole or just the ones who finance the campaigns of current officeholders), and the laws passed immediately following 09/11 are putting the crunch on states. State governments are forced to pay for things like more security at airports, transit stations, etc. Kentucky is not releasing 600 prisoners because they feel generous. Federal laws are mandating implementations that states would have had difficulty funding before 09/11, but now states are stretched to the breaking point to do so. Federal fiscal responsibility is at an all-time low under the Bush administration, thus they have no money to spare and are using their resources to beg for what little cash may prove available to rebuild Iraq.

Sales taxes are one of the primary means of state government fundraising. In such a crunch time, they justifiably fear losing much of "their" income to retailers and possibly looking at struggling brick-and-mortar businesses disappear because someone can sell the same product for less while still making a profit because they can avoid sales tax. Thus the revenue lost is two-fold: tax from the item itself and from property, purchase, and income from any and all businesses that fail as a result of interstate competitors. In a free market this is just how life works, but this country is a regulated capitalist system, hence why MS can be prosecuted on anti-trust charges and slowed from trying to monopolize multiple Internet markets. How can we solve the problem?

The logical solution IMO would be to have the sales tax of the state in which the vendor is located applied to the item if purchased domestically and the sales tax of the state of the recipient applied if the items was purchased internationally. Does anyone have any thoughts on how to actually implement a (potentially) workable sales tax on internet items?

--
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.

Re:Inevitable but for key reasons... by trompete · 2003-09-26 10:13 · Score: 1

I like the current system: you pay sales tax if you are located in the same state as the manufacturer. Living in Minnesota, a service state (Target, Best Buy...etc), it is nice to buy goods from California and other states without sales tax, which can be larger than the shipping costs for large goods.

--
More than enough BS
Re:Inevitable but for key reasons... by Rick.C · 2003-09-26 12:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to actually implement a (potentially) workable sales tax on internet items?
This may sound frivolous but I'm being serious. Everyone's answer is, "Whatever benefits me the most."
To the consumer this means, "No taxes." To the state politicians this means, "Tax everything, but I'll exempt myself from paying." And finally to the businessman this means, "Tax everyone else's sales so that I'll have an edge."
"Fair" really doesn't enter into it really, although the term "fair" will be used by everyone to justify their favorite plan. "Greed" is the operative word, here.
What? Me cynical?

--
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Re:Inevitable but for key reasons... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 12:47 · Score: 0

You have to tax based on the purchaser, not the seller. If for no other reason, consider the fact that there's only 1 seller, and there are lots of purchasers. If you only tax the seller, you're going to get a clamor for rules to tax the one lucky state where the seller is located. (On the bright side, you'd get a lot of competition to get sellers to move to states with cheaper taxes.)

Consider sales taxes on cars. Most places I've been, the tax is based on the purchaser's county, not the dealership location. This avoids pushing customers out of urban areas (with higher taxes) to dealerships in less expensive areas.
Re:Inevitable but for key reasons... by wayward_son · 2003-09-26 13:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Kentucky is not releasing 600 prisoners because they feel generous.
I am not from Kentucky, but I'm willing to bet that Kentucky is releasing prisoners as opposed to cutting pork is because pork gets you votes, while actually running the state properly does not.
Re:Inevitable but for key reasons... by dnoyeb · 2003-09-26 15:24 · Score: 1

Actually we already have this tax under the current system. Read your states tax code. 15 years ago when I ordered car audio parts from Crutchfield, I was obliged to put it on my state tax form, and pay tax.

So when they say they need a tax, its a lie. So we should all be concerned about what they are REALLY after to sneak thru under the guise of taxes...
Re:Inevitable but for key reasons... by Dausha · 2003-09-26 15:43 · Score: 1

Federal laws are mandating implementations that states would have had difficulty funding . . .

You know, that's the reason why the Founding Fathers had that whole balance of power between State and National Governments. The people had representation via the House, and the States did through the Senate. However, an amendment gave the Senate to the people. So now, States are not truely represented. If Senators were selected by the State Legislatures, then perhaps there would be fewer unfunded mandates radiating out of the Beltway.

And now, there are those who want to further strip the States of their end of the scale by removing the Electoral College. Please remember, we are States united.

--
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.

Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:00 · Score: 0

Mod parent up!

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by antv · 2003-09-26 10:00 · Score: 1

Look at it this way. By cutting Federal taxes then the states have more room to raise theirs.

Sales taxes are way worse than income tax, since sales taxes - guess what - discourage sales. What states are rising isn't income tax, but sales taxes, and that damages the economy.

--
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !

States Push for Net Sales Taxes by Tacoguy · 2003-09-26 10:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Colorado's Governor Owens is seeking a moratorium on the grounds of "taxation without representation" I am no fan of Owens but he is on the right track here. Best

Re:States Push for Net Sales Taxes by Dr+Caleb · 2003-09-26 10:28 · Score: 1

And what comes after that? Well, millions of Spice Girls CD's floating in Boston Harbour...

--
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain

Wrong by cubicledrone · 2003-09-26 10:01 · Score: 1

There are so many things wrong with this it's difficult to know where to start.

and state and local governments fear that tax collections will decline as shoppers turn to the Internet more often.

Shame, isn't it? Then CUT THE FUCKING BUDGET.

Does it not amaze everyone that state and local governments are the only money-spenders who REFUSE to make do with less? The businesses and people they TAX UP THE ASS have to. Why don't they?

"especially at a time when local governments have been squeezed by so many fiscal pressures"

Yeah, like running up record deficits and then running and crying to the media about how much money you're losing because you can't tax every single thing you want.

Traditional brick-and-mortar retailers also have their eyes on lost money. They said they stand to lose money as shoppers turn to tax-free Internet purchases.

In other words, competition should be disallowed. Remember the free market? Nice theory.

We are OVERTAXED AS IT IS. It is absolutely unconstitutional and unfair to ask a business in another state to collect sales tax. Period.

Oh, and anyone notice that the story has no details on exactly what the fuck this tax is?

--
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.

Re:Wrong by TheShadow · 2003-09-26 10:06 · Score: 1

Does it not amaze everyone that state and local governments are the only money-spenders who REFUSE to make do with less?

They are not the only ones... the federal government is even worse.

--

--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by mcwop · 2003-09-26 10:01 · Score: 1

Why do I want higher Federal taxes? State taxes don't have to hit the poor, states can adopt a progressive system. Nothing is stopping them. Funny how liberals raise regressive taxes with impunity, while claiming to be for the little guy.

--

"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

Unworkable... by VivianC · 2003-09-26 10:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

Disclaimer: I am not a CPA, but my wife is and holds a Masters in Taxation. We talk about this subject often.

With the state tax systems being the way they are, it would be impossible for a small seller on the internet to comply with the laws. Forty-seven states have sales taxes (or is it 48?) and each one is different. A seller on eBay would need to compute that tax for the buyer (state, county, city, in most cases) and then file quarterly with that state. Oh, and to file, you need to apply for a tax id number in that state which may require a business license depending on local laws. Say goodbye to all the small businesses who sell anything on the web.

Or, you could always have a store on the web and have an order form printed that needs to be faxed. That would make you a mail order business which no one seems to be talking about taxing.

--
Viv

Gmail invites for ip

Re:Unworkable... by soft_guy · 2003-09-26 10:45 · Score: 1

>A seller on eBay would need to compute that tax for the buyer

Sales taxes do not apply to used goods (such as garage sales). I don't think the seller on eBay would have to compute any sales tax. However, eBay would have to charge sales tax to the seller on the fee for hosting the auction.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Re:Unworkable... by NineNine · 2003-09-26 11:21 · Score: 1

Net stores already have such low overhead... why not have them buy a $50 software package that takes care of that? They don't contribute to local economies at all, so why not make 'em collect their own taxes? I collect local sales tax, I pay unemployment, Medicare, FICA, shit, a whole bunch of stuff that I pay my accountant to do. Why should Net companies have *zero* overhead when they don't contribute the way brick and mortar stores do?
Re:Unworkable... by litlnemo · 2003-09-26 11:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

We don't contribute to local economies? Funny, I thought I was doing that when I take the money my internet business brings in and spend it at local stores and other local businesses.

Where did you get the idea that Net companies have zero overhead? We have overhead, it's just not exactly the same overhead. Like B&M businesses, we pay rent, we pay for our inventory, we have to buy supplies, we pay accountants and lawyers. Like you, I collect local sales tax (when I sell to residents of my state). I don't pay the other stuff because I don't yet have an employee, so it's not yet relevant. (Soon, maybe. We are growing.) But that would be the case whether I was operating a Net company or not.

As someone pointed out above, there is absolutely no way in hell this can work unless there is some uniform nationwide GST. As a one-person operation here, there is no way I can manage keeping track of hundreds of different tax jurisdictions and their payment requirements. It cannot be done. I am skeptical of your "$50 software" suggestion for a variety of reasons. (I prefer to use the OS and software of my choice, for one thing. Another thing is that integrating this into my shopping cart/accounting software system would be difficult and expensive.)

I don't actually object to the tax if it is fairly applied (and that means a uniform national tax, that can be paid with our income tax, and that is applied to all retail businesses, not just penalizing Net businesses). But I really doubt they will do that.

--
// ...whatever... //
Re:Unworkable... by Wordplay · 2003-09-26 12:19 · Score: 1

That's not universally true. For example, Colorado Springs levies a sales tax after the first $300 of goods.

http://www.springsgov.com/Page.asp?NavID=1149

It really is a per state/county/city thing. That's what makes having universal enforcement so horribly unworkable.
Re:Unworkable... by BAKup · 2003-09-26 13:11 · Score: 1

why not have them buy a $50 software package that takes care of that?
There is no $50 software package to take care of that, the cheapest one I've found is around $1K a year. It is not cheap nor easy to keep track of every single tax district in the country, and all the changes that will happen, and having to file for each and every one you happen to make a sale in.
Re:Unworkable... by Fjandr · 2003-09-27 04:10 · Score: 1

They don't contribute to local economies at all

Bullshit. They contribute as much or more to local economies, because they are bringing in out-of-state dollars, the majority of which are then spent in-state, generating comparable tax revenue. Just because the state loses on one single transaction in the chain means absolutely squat.
Re:Unworkable... by VivianC · 2003-09-27 16:07 · Score: 1

I collect local sales tax, I pay unemployment, Medicare, FICA, shit, a whole bunch of stuff that I pay my accountant to do. Why should Net companies have *zero* overhead when they don't contribute the way brick and mortar stores do?

So when you make a sale, do you require ID before you can compute the tax? If they come from out of state, do you need to remit taxes to that state instead of your own? That is what they are going to be asking net stores to do.

To make it simple, every net store should follow their local tax laws and remit only in their home state, just like brick and mortar stores do. Anything else is unfair to small business.

--
Viv

Gmail invites for ip

Don't mod parent posts down by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:02 · Score: 0

Don't mod the parent post down; it makes the orphaned responses look like non-sequiturs when they don't quote the parent.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by Frymaster · 2003-09-26 10:03 · Score: 1

How did the tax cut hurt the economy?

deficit, debt and interest. when you spend more than you tax you have to borrow at interest. if you accumulate enough debt, then just paying the interest on it becomes a major budget expense - which you have to meet by either a) raising taxes or b) borrowing more.

simple math, really.

--

2 1337 4 u!

Amazon is probably by rsilvergun · 2003-09-26 10:03 · Score: 1

big enough now they can buy in bulk, and leverage their other revenue streams to pick up the slack when needed. Or at least they think they are. Think Walmart. No, Amazon would love taxes at this point in time, since it would kill all those small internet businesses that can't afford to cut large deals with book sellers and shipping agents to reduce costs.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Amazon is probably by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 12:56 · Score: 0

Incoming shipping could help offset some of the added cost if passed on to the consumer(which won't last if it happens at all; they'll start looking at it as a money stream like these politicians). The big-o is shipping to customers. That + taxes will hit even amazon because the number of shipments are just so much larger on that side of the equation. The only way for the offset to work is if someone looses out; either the suppliers, amazon, or the customers. Who do you want to bet will get targeted for this robbery? So, you're back to shipping + tax vs tax = kills online business.

In other news... by wraithgar · 2003-09-26 10:04 · Score: 1

Data havens are preparing for an influx in hosting contracts.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 10:05 · Score: 1

Why do I want higher Federal taxes? State taxes don't have to hit the poor, states can adopt a progressive system. Nothing is stopping them.

No states cant, Some states dont have rich people living in them. Sure New York could adopt a progressive tax, so could California, and Boston, but what about all the other states in the country? Also if we do that people will move out of New York and the whole economy will shift and change.

Also who are the "liberals" I'm assuming you mean the Democrats. Guess what, I'm not a liberal.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Actually by Sycraft-fu · 2003-09-26 10:05 · Score: 1

Sales tax tends to be pretty equal. Why? Because the more money you have, the more you spend, so the more you pay. also notice that things such as food are exempt from sales tax. Now as for consumer goods, the thing is, as I said, the rich buy more.

Income tax, by the way, is NOT equal in this country. The rich bear a much large percentage burden than the poor. Not saying that is a problem, but do not that is how it is. If you work a minimum wage job, your income tax liability is very small, under 10%. If you make 500k/year your tax liability is very large, over 30%. So the rich not only pay more in terms of dollar amounts, but more in terms of percentage as well.

Sales tax is simply an equal percentage of whatever taxable goods you buy. so if you spend $2000 a year on taxable goods and have a 10% sales tax, you spend $200 a year on sales tax. If you spend $200,000 a year on taxable good with the same sales tax, you spend $20,000 a year on sales tax. So whatever level of spending you are at, your tax matches.

Not having an Internet sales tax is also something that tends to be uneven in favour of the well off, rather than the poor. To take advantage of it, you need a computer and Internet access, which is unessential to life and hence something many poor people do not have. Thus they must buy locally and pay the local sales tax.

Re:Actually by soft_guy · 2003-09-26 10:49 · Score: 1

>also notice that things such as food are exempt from sales tax.

Some states, maybe (California, I believe). In many states food is NOT exempt.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Re:Actually by Mike+Hawk · 2003-09-26 10:53 · Score: 1

For the record, in CA food is exempt. Not prepared food at Spago mind you, but unprepared foot at a supermarket is not subject to sales tax.

persepective by _avs_007 · 2003-09-26 10:06 · Score: 1

depends on how you look at it... Tax cuts for the rich, could (I suppose), provide an incentive to spur more business investment, which means more jobs, more $$$, etc...

By a show of hands, who here works for a poor person?

On the opposite side of the spectrum, you could say that most people when receiving tax relief, they save the money instead of spending it, thus the relief didn't really do anything... Its all perspective...

I'm sorry to come over all English by dan+dan+the+dna+man · 2003-09-26 10:07 · Score: 1

but what exactly does this mean?

Next question:

how will it be regulated?

--
I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?

Gotta pay for the rich folks tax breaks somehow. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:07 · Score: 1, Informative

Since we do not what to add any extra burdon to the rich and recall elections are expensive this is a great way to increase revenue!

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:08 · Score: 0

That small recession ending less than 9 months after it started (and 4 months after his first tax cut.) The "collapse" you're referring to (I assume) is the current lack of jobs, which isn't anything out of the ordinary. The 90's had a ridiculous and unsustainable unemployment level. The current unemployment rate is more normal.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by trompete · 2003-09-26 10:08 · Score: 1

...not to mention that by adding taxes to online goods, they will kill a market that has thrived because they have been an extra 6-9% cheaper than the retail price after taxes (depending on the state). Adding state taxes to the goods discourages the consumer from shopping online anymore, killing the online businesses.

--
More than enough BS

*Argh* Why not make a simple tax? by forgoil · 2003-09-26 10:08 · Score: 1

Who cares if it is over the counter, over the internet, or by having the neighbours kid go buy it. Just put a tax at the place of purchase (i.e. where the company whom are selling the product does business) and be done with it.

And speaking of sales tax, try paying 25% sales tax instead. 6.5% would be great.

And since I have been without internet for a few days, I'm cranky, so why not show prices including the taxes in the states. It's a bugger adding the tax...

Exactly by Brian+Knotts · 2003-09-26 10:09 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm in Oregon.

On the way to work, I saw state-contracted workers pressure washing the center divider.

That's just one example that is repeated throughout government, as it becomes more and more of a jobs program.

Re:Exactly by Kyouryuu · 2003-09-26 10:28 · Score: 1

Oregon in particular does a horrendous job with finances and passes the taxes right down to us. A record-breaking legislative session this year and what do they have to show for it? A sneakily worded tax increase that passes the unsuspecting voters and another tax hike planned for later this year.
Oregon is one example of why voting is a joke. On a regular basis, the state elects to overturn what the voters tell it to do. There is no responsibility these people have to answer to. If you ever watch the proceedings on the local government channel, you'll see that no one cares - $50 million here, $60 million here, oh wait? We have a deficit? Heavens, no! Must work on a new tax! Where's that loophole again?
Re:Exactly by NanoGator · 2003-09-26 11:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

"On the way to work, I saw state-contracted workers pressure washing the center divider." ...and students are getting fewer days in school and losing programs.

Sometimes I just wanna shout "Hail Skroob!"

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Exactly by Jodka · 2003-09-26 12:38 · Score: 1

I can top that one.

I live in Brooklyn. There is a supermarket down the street which provides electric trikes for the handicapped, though the only handicap of the riders I have seen is that they are too fat to walk. Super-fat women drive the electric carts around the store, stuffing the attached baskets to the brim with food and then pay with food stamps . (For those outside the US, foodsamps are government food vouchers for the poor).

You might think that funding obesity would be an area to cut back spending and save us tax payers some money. Not to mention, a cost insentive to restrict food intake could improve the health, happiness and employability of these fattties. The first whishper of government cutbacks in the foodstamp programs and accusations begin to fly about rich and irresponsible Republicans trying to escape their obligations to society by starving the poor.

In my opinon, most of the people who are against cuts in government spending are well intentioned but unaware of where the money actually goes. They imagine that tax dollars and the food stamps which they fund go to save the innocent street waifs from starvation. In fact, its helping that 300 pound welfare momma gain another 10.

Feeding starving steet waifs is a good thing, and I would back a tax hike if I could be sure that the funding went to that or some other worthy cause. But I can not be sure, because government is unaccountable to the public which is compelled to fund it. I want to know how many lard asses my tax dollars feed before I decide whether government needs to take even more of my income from me. But do you think the government is actually going to tell me that ? No.

I am not against fat people. Food is good, and if you enjoy it enough to offset the risks at costs of overeating, well that's your own personal choice. But it shold be only your own choice. What I don't agree with that that I am compelled by law to fund obesity.

I think the difference between conservatives and liberals on matters of social spending is not the difference between selfish and generous intentions, but between trust and distrust in government. Liberals believe that government spending should increase, because goverment spends money to good ends. Conservatives believe that increases in government spending are bad, because government spends wastefully and harmfully.

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature.

Before the states get another penny by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:09 · Score: 0

they should spend the excess money they already have. They are lying to you, people.

Will everybody just go look at this? There's information there on 37 states. Remember it's not counting excess money held by counties and cities.

The information he is giving comes from the states' own Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.

Even California has a surplus. The ruling class (politicians both Dem and Rep) want more of your money. Taxes are about power and control. That's why your freedoms are disappearing.

Read, learn, and vote the bastards out of office. Have you all forgotten the lessons of history? Wouldn't you rather live free?

yeah, great idea by siskbc · 2003-09-26 10:10 · Score: 1

You know, there's a REASON that the flat tax is mainly supported by rich people like Forbes.

--

-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

Re:yeah, great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:57 · Score: 0

It doesn't matter--people like these flat tax idiots are just looking at immediate personal gain. It's a sick kind of greed, really, and it shows one of two things: a) no compassion, whatsoever, about your fellow man or b) massive, Earth-shattering ignorance (1984, perpetual war for perpetual peace-style ignorance).

There are few things as dangerous, my friend, as the middle class.

And this a surprise? by abolith · 2003-09-26 10:10 · Score: 1

Why can't the feds and states just be honest for once and admit all they want it to take your whole fucking paycheck? Instead they just pass "a little tax" here and there. holy fucking shit why not try a new and revolutionary budget solution.

SPEND LESS MONEY AND STOP TRYING TO JUST STEAL MORE MONEY FROM ME YOU GODS DAMMNED GREEDY BASTARDS

Naw to damned easy

--
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."

Oh yeah? Answer this. by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 10:11 · Score: 1

You could see that Mr. Bush is trying to stop the $pending $pree that states are on. Don't blame him for 'forcing' states to do anything. States have been relying on the federal tit for way too long.

So who pays for homeland security? All these new security features, all these new police, patrols, and technologies.

Where is the money for the war on terrorism supposed to come from? Oh right, the tree of money in the backyard? wait no, maybe from the air, we just think of $$ and money appears to fight terror!

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

It's AP, not CNN, and it's no "scoop" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:12 · Score: 1, Informative

If you want the "Scoop" on this story, go to washingtonpost.com's story, which reports that Amazon.com is about to endorse the Internet sales tax plan. And it gives really good background on this whole issue. Kudos for AP for reporting a good story, but check out the facts at washingtonpost.com.

Use Tax by Bull999999 · 2003-09-26 10:12 · Score: 1

Many states have "Use Tax", where you are supposed to report and pay taxes on goods you bought from another state but didn't pay sales tax for them. Since states cannot force sales tax on out of state businesses, this Use Tax is based on the honor system. So if you believe that states need more money, lead the way and pay the Use Tax. If your state does not have a Use Tax, calculate the sales tax on mail/internet order items and donate it to the state.

--
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d

Re:Use Tax by Excen · 2003-09-26 10:17 · Score: 1

...Use Tax is based on the honor system....

Hi! I am from the 51st state of Slashdotta! Since you are currently a citizen within state limits, I am requesting you send your "Use Tax" money to the following numbered account in Nigeria . . .

--
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
Re:Use Tax by sybert · 2003-09-26 10:34 · Score: 1

Certainly a sales tax includes use tax since you use an item the same whether you buy on or off line. But when states set use tax = sales tax this implies that the sales tax portion is zero. This implies that all the traffic infrastructure, security, and other services provided by local government to support merchants costs nothing. (Not to mention the tax breaks that government gives to merchants to get them to locate in their jurisdiction so that they can collect the sales tax from that merchant.)

There is money in e-commerce, so states demands to take a cut, even if they provide no services to support e-commerce that are not already taxed. (Gas tax for delivery trucks, airport taxes) Government's need for money gives them no right to collect use tax. Sales tax on online, catalog, and other remote sales should be zero even when the merchant has a state presence.

If you want to read more about SSTP by morganew · 2003-09-26 10:12 · Score: 1

If you would like to know more about SSTP, NetChoice has just released a report on the effect it will have on eCommerce.

Sales Tax Simplification: Not So Fast -- It's Not That Simple

As the dot-com bubble burst, the US economy entered recession, and states faced huge revenue shortfalls, the debate over imposing sales taxes on remote Internet sales has quickly heated up. States forecast an aggregate revenue gap between $40 and $70 billion annually and they cite taxes lost to e-commerce as a primary reason. States add that remote catalogs and e-commerce are hurting "Main Street" retailers who are collecting sales tax on every purchase.

In reality, states will realize about ten percent of their oft-cited projections of uncollected sales taxes. At the same time, e-commerce has not had the anticipated devastating effect on "Main Street" retailers. Growth in e-commerce has cannibalized catalog and phone order sales, which have never been widely taxed nor pillaged the sales of Main Street.

In addition, the SSTP lacks the clarity necessary for tax fairness and favors tax collection authority over the interests of Web retailers and consumers. Ambiguity surrounding taxable goods, intra- and inter-state battles around participation in the Project, and the unresolved issues of business activity taxes all mean the SSTP's real simplicity, fairness, and viability are far from certain.

The compliance costs of SSTP -- especially for small firms -- could well outweigh the probable benefits of taxing all remote purchases. States can recoup some lost revenue and help make-up budget shortfalls with more aggressive pursuit of multi-channel, multi-state retailers and greater use tax enforcement, without a federal mandate imposed on all inter-state retailers.

--
A sig?!? I don't think so.....

Who pays for the no child left behind act? by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 10:13 · Score: 1

Where will the money come from to fund these new tougher standards for public schools? Who is going to fund it? Oh thats right States will cut spending and pull the money out of their magicians hat in the same way George Bush pulls money out of the magicians hat to pay for rebuilding Iraq.

Hows 87 billion sound? Its not really alot of money but I bet its more than all our states have. Iraq is the size of California right? Why arent we giving California 87 billion? Open your eyes.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Mod Up! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:15 · Score: 0

I don't like Bush but I hate the partisan bashing over stuff like this
there is plenty to criticize him for do it right or not at all

not to mention by _avs_007 · 2003-09-26 10:17 · Score: 1

We may have had 8 years of "Clinton's Tax Free Internet", but wasn't it Clinton who instituted the largest tax hike in US history? Now granted this is probably not the most unbiased source :p , just saying....

Anyways, I would hardly call it 8 years of Clinton's tax free internet, considering the web (as we know it today), did not really exist the first four years of his presidency. I remember using stuff like lynx, gopher, and Mosaic. I don't think the graphical browsers were even available until after 94'. And even then, I remember hardly anyone had web sites. Most people I knew were just using usenetto surf for free pr0n :)

Soooo, Michael, who gave you HEAD to post this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:17 · Score: 0

Was it Timothy?

What is wrong with this picture? by Eric+Smith · 2003-09-26 10:18 · Score: 1

I'm not fundamentally opposed to taxing interstate commerce, but why the f*#@ should interstate sales over the internet be taxed in any different way than interstate telephone sales, interstate mail order sales, etc.? The internet is only acting as a communication medium, and does not fundamentally change the nature of an interstate sale: an order is communicated from a buyer to a seller in another state, and goods are shipped from the seller to the buyer.

fuck the states by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:19 · Score: 0

iraq used to be more free than this shithole

They problem with this is... by funwithBSD · 2003-09-26 10:19 · Score: 1

The reason for collecting taxes is to improve the infrastructure supporting business (such as roads, public works, chamber of commerce, etc).
What is the value add to E-tailers? are they going to help build up the Net? Do we want them to?
Government can legitimally claim a portion of the sales of Brick and Morters, but they do not contribute to E-tailing at the level of requiring them to kick in extra taxes.

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by Chaosrider · 2003-09-26 10:20 · Score: 1

This seems to be counter to Bush's effort to "foster long-term economic growth". What's the likelyhood of a veto if Bush has to sign the bill for it to become law?

Fiscal irresponsibility since 1932...and solutions by Dukeofshadows · 2003-09-26 10:20 · Score: 1

Since about 1929, our government (US) has engaged in almost non-stop deficit spending. It was most evident in the current admin as well as the Reagan and Roosevelt (WWII) regimes. Yet in the past we can see that war, space exploration, and staving off of Communism were the primary causes. These were much more justifiable because of the tangible returns on our investment: GPS systems, microcomputers, solid-state electronics, and thousands of other useful technologies we now use everyday. In the current administration we can not point to anything so tangible, but to claim that Bush was the first president to fail fiscally is not true.

I do not supprt most of the things that Mr. Bush does nor do I agree with any of his policies on domestic economics. The tax cuts do largely target wealthy families and did little to close loopholes on international money-shuffling that allow the wealthy of our nation to by-pass payment of most of our taxes. Nor did it do anything to prevent the corporations of the US from getting million or billion-dollar refunds from the IRS via corporate loopholes. It is easy for us to idealize the Clinton years, espeically along party lines, but much of the same problems were going on. The only major difference was that our quiescence was purchased at the cost of prosperity and overvalued telecom and tech stocks.

Real change is difficult, especially in a nation of this size. This is compounded by the fact that the population of our nation now knows that politicians are so desperate to keep office that they will give their voters money from the public treasury (tax cuts, socialized medicine, etc.) in order to retain office. Though this began in the Depression it continues unabated and magnified to this day. Remember that only about 102 million Americans voted in the last election - between 35-40% of the populace as a whole. It is much easier to pay for the votes of 50 million Americans than it would be to pay for 150 million. Again, fiscally this nation has been slowly going more and more out-of-whack since 1932 and continues in a financial death spiral that will catch up with us as soon as our international creditors no longer believe we are creditworthy and pull the plug on more loans.

Getting a group of friends together can make the difference in local, state, or even national elections. We must take responsibility for our politician's actions and call them to heel if they do not perform. It is easy to stand by and point fingers, but just because it is easy does not mean it is the right thing to do. Real change in this country will only come about when we as a people elect a group of people to office who are dedicated to getting us out of debt and making us self-sufficient in energy again. This may mean fusion research, getting our oil from Siberia instead of Arabia, microwave solar systems, banning SUVs and other fuel-inefficient cars (god forbid), or whatever else is deemed necessary. The time has come for hard choices: do we send the same old politicans back for more or does someone have wherewithall to buck the system and help someone dedicated to change get elected to an office themselves?

--
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.

Natural extension by Keighvin · 2003-09-26 10:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Most US states already have clauses which allow them to tax goods purchased from vendors outside of that state for primary consumption/use within it, specifically applicable to catalogue and mail-order purchases. This is a natural extension of the same, and in fact several states already have open-ended clauses on those catalogue use/purchase laws that encompass internet purchases as well.

These burdens currently rest on the consumer, who must report the gross amount of goods purchased on their year-end taxes to be assessed accordingly.

An additional thought is that mail-order and catalogue goods still count for several times more business than internet sales, though this obviously won't remain the case. I can't see this as too "unfair" if the regulatory bodies are adapting to the new methods of business transactions just as those businesses are.

--
Any spoon would be too big.

How long before the spammers... by Delron+Da+Thugg · 2003-09-26 10:21 · Score: 0

How long before the spammers start sending out junk mail claiming to be an 'official' agency attempting to collect 'back internet taxes' or offering some tax protection software for $19.95?

They tax food in most/many States by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:22 · Score: 0

And property taxes are collected by local governments

I'd sooner pay an email tax by dang-a-pin · 2003-09-26 10:22 · Score: 1

Cause that would kill most of the spam in a heartbeat.

My point is the tax cut didnt help by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 10:23 · Score: 1

The trillion dollar tax cut left us with no money to fund all these wars and all this spending. This is why theres no money going to states to fight the war on terror.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Re:My point is the tax cut didnt help by phantomlord · 2003-09-26 11:42 · Score: 1

cut back spending to Constitutional levels... Of the $2.2 trillion budget, only about 1/5th is actually spent on stuff that is allowed under the Constitution. Make cuts in that $1.7 trillion of fluff to cover the defense needs (the PREDOMINATE purpose of the federal government)

--
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Re:My point is the tax cut didnt help by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 12:16 · Score: 1

Come on man be realistic, you know thats not going to happen and even if it did, It wont happen overnight, what? You expect it all to happen in a matter of months?

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Re:My point is the tax cut didnt help by phantomlord · 2003-09-26 18:13 · Score: 1

When my mortgage went up, I immediately had to change my spending. The government shouldn't be any different... if you can't fund all of your programs, you HAVE to cut something, not look down the end of a barrel and demand people give you more money to waste. Step 1: The federal government has NO business in education (find me the authorization under Article I, Section 8 for it)... bye, bye dept of education. Step 2: The US government has no right to setup a ponzi retirement scheme (again, find it in A1S8). We'll pay the current retirees, all people who've paid in for at least 25 years. Everyone else can have 10% of their income mandated into a private retirement account rather than into the government coffers. Step 3: Welfare and health care is a state issue (again, A1S8). Shift it to the states and counties where the reps are more responsible for spending your money (ie, 2 senators to 18 million people vs 8 county reps to 18,000 people in my county).
Eliminate the unconstitutional programs and the federal deficit is gone in 3-4 years.

--
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by Delron+Da+Thugg · 2003-09-26 10:23 · Score: 0

Please stop bashing bush. I like bush. You may have a different preference, but that's no reason to condemn my choice. And in regards to the topic, I'm against any tax on bush. I pay enough for it.

I have a better idea... by TheShadow · 2003-09-26 10:23 · Score: 1

This is just genius. I'm patting myself on the back as I write this.

Here's my idea of the century:

STOP SPENDING SO MUCH FUCKING MONEY!

Hear that Congress? Hear that fucking State of Maryland? The budget problems are YOUR FAULT. Not mine. If it wasn't for me and all the other taxpayers, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY MONEY TO SPEND.

FUCK YOU ALL!

--

--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."

Re:I have a better idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 18:28 · Score: 0

Don't blame Ehrlich, blame that asshole Mike Bush.
Re:I have a better idea... by TheShadow · 2003-09-27 00:27 · Score: 1

Oh, I'm not blaming Ehrlich. At least he's dealing with the problem by reducing spending, not raising taxes. He's a good guy... I voted for him... and so far, I'm happy with the job he's doing.

--

--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by the_2nd_coming · 2003-09-26 10:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am a Democrat, and I know that Tax cuts do not hurt the economy.

you are not taking money out of the budget when you cut next year's taxs, you are reducing the money available FROM INCOME TAX. but you end up gaining money from better economic growth, the problem here is that we were headed into a recession at the tail end of Clinton's years (growth was falling and hit the negative side a few months after Bush took office...BEFORE the tax cuts)

anyway, the size of the money taken out of the budget for the next year was 10s of billions and well under 50 billion. that is Chump Change when you look at the total losses taken during the recession and stagnation periods. it made more sence to cut taxes, because more economic stimulation happend from that than would have if it filtered through to special programs, of which it would have made little impact.

blame the deficet spending, which would have only been 50 billion less without the tax cuts (recall, it is 2 trillion over 10 YEARS)

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

buy over seas by Arch-out · 2003-09-26 10:24 · Score: 1

I guess I will just have to by any products that I want from vendors that are not in the US. I don't know how they intend to apply the laws here to companies out side of this country?

"Pushing" my ass! This is a HUGE problem. by jabber01 · 2003-09-26 10:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Just last week, my father got a bill, and a fine, from the state of Connecticut, for purchasing cigarettes online. The bill was for exactly two purchases, of maybe a total of a dozen cartons, from the same company. The fine was for not accounting for the unpaid CT Sales Tax on last years tax return. With the fine, the total bill was $400.00.

Just wait until States get the brass balls to audit Amazon.com, to get the purchasing history of State residents.

Not only is everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, going to pay fines and taxes out the ass - their purchasing histories will also likely be disclosed.

Not only is there potential to charge EVERYONE with tax evasion, there is also the same privacy concern as in monitoring people's liberary activities.

--

The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life

Re:"Pushing" my ass! This is a HUGE problem. by kaszeta · 2003-09-26 14:57 · Score: 1

Just wait until States get the brass balls to audit Amazon.com, to get the purchasing history of State residents.
Not only is everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, going to pay fines and taxes out the ass
No, you don't mean everyone (and stop shouting).
I don't pay sales tax on my online purchases. And even if this goes through, I won't. Why? Because I live in a state with no sales tax, and no use tax. This proposed legislation *doesn't* create any new taxes, it just streamlines enforcement of the existing sales and use taxes. Sales taxes themselves are already fairly well enforced, but use taxes are often scoffed off. If you live in a state with no existing taxes, the situation doesn't change---I can continue to shop online to my heart's content.
In a way, this is good. New Hampshire already gets a real big boost to the economy from people coming across the borders from VT, MA, and ME to shop. Now internet sellers will start setting up here as well (admittedly, for large online retailers it is difficult to avoid establishing nexus in a state, but that's another topic).

The Constitution? Are you delusional? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:27 · Score: 0

Evidently you are. If you think they give a damn about the Constitution then please explain the "Patriot" Act, 20,000 gun grab laws, the DMCA, welfare, foreign aid, foreign wars and "police actions" that occur all the time, the jackbooted, black ski mask wearing thugs of the DEA, IRS, FBI, SS, BATF, Customs, FEMA, even the postal service and now even your local police (who have been federalized by the way), the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, etc, etc, etc. This is not what America was supposed to be about. Time to wake up and realize that they hate the Constitution, and they hate you unless you're one of them.

Quick! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:27 · Score: 0

Buy all that online stuff you've been waiting to buy before the sales tax comes in!

Really though, I don't think this is such a big deal. I've had to pay sales tax on stuff that was based in my state, and the price difference really isn't that great. You're going to have to pay it eventually, either through increased state taxes or through worse social programs (OK Some of you may not care about social programs, but I for one believe public education is important, so we don't resort to prehistoric cavemen. Oops, might be too late..)

This is not the death of e-commerce. However, I'm curious if they will be able to tax things like downloads that you pay for online.

har by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:27 · Score: 0

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html

Re:What can we expect our states to do? by Delron+Da+Thugg · 2003-09-26 10:27 · Score: 0

Now what's with the Israel bashing? That's our tax dollars at work.

Why is everyone blaming the states? by JayBlalock · 2003-09-26 10:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Blame the FEDERAL government. Do you know the REAL reason most of the states are in such dire financial shape? Because every single Homeland Security mandate is entirely UNFUNDED.

You know how we all snickered when the Terrorist Rainbo-meter kept going up and down like a Yo-Yo? Every time it went into Orange, that was millions more spent by the state every day in complying with the Federal demands. (depending a lot, obviously, on the size of the state. Here in Texas we got borked by this but hard since we have loads of cities, the 3rd biggest Int'l Airport in the country, and a HUGE foreign border)

So, at the same time Bush was making such a big deal about Tax Cuts! Tax Cuts! WHEEEE!, he was virtually guaranteeing that the States would be forced to raise THEIR taxes to compensate. And, needless to say, of all that money he's asked for lately to send over to Iraq, not a penny goes to the states, where the ACTUAL Homeland Security is being performed.

And, of course, failure to comply with a Federal Mandate, even unfunded, means risking losing even more Federal money. (for things like highway repair)

So, intentional or not, the situation has been set up where the States are the ones getting screwed at both ends. Either they let themselves go completely bankrupt, or they are forced to implement policies which any rational economist would find horrifying in a recession. (and all of y'all complaining about government being a "work program," full of jobs that can be cut, please explain to me how laying off more workers when there's already rising unemployment is a good idea)

Maybe this will get passed, maybe not. The states are utterly screwed either way. But if you want to get angry, get angry at the Feds.

--
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by Urkki · 2003-09-26 10:30 · Score: 1

US government is fast heading towards 3rd world status. There's only so much debt a government can have before they can't get any more because the lenders aren't confident they can pay it back.

Some 3rd world country can just ignore their debt, and nobody really cares much (except those who have lent them the money of course), since that's peanuts, and their impact to world economy is barely noticeable, and really who cares (I mean *cares* for real, not only in speeches) if a few million in that country starve to death, it's in Africa or somewhere anyway. (No, I don't think like that, but that's the current world reality.)

But if US declared that it's not going to pay it's debts, just imagine what that would do to world economy... And I fear this will eventually happen. I just hope the big US corporations have become global enough at that point, and other economies (EU and China above all) have grown enough to make US a slightly less crucial part of world economy. If not, we're headed for some really bad times. As opposed to just averagely bad times.

Because I don't see US expenses (especially military) getting any smaller very fast, and I don't see a big tax raise in near future either, which means more and more debt...

How much of US debt is domestic, and how much is international?

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by the_2nd_coming · 2003-09-26 10:30 · Score: 1

I like higher sales taxes here in Michigan, it funds the schools.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

Bezos supports sales tax by peter303 · 2003-09-26 10:30 · Score: 1

Mainly because amazon.com already has system in place for implementing it (based on delivery zip code). More business might join the Amazon storefront in order to use the tax service.

sales taxes affect everyone by donutz · 2003-09-26 10:31 · Score: 1

With an all-income-tax system, everyone bears the burden of taxation equally. Sales tax makes the poor bear the burden more than the rich.

I think you're wrong.

If I'm making $500,000 per year, I'm not spending the bare minimum on life essentials and stuffing the rest into a savings account or my mattress. I'm spending a lot more money too.

So I buy a a new $10,000 bedroom set. I end up paying about $700 in taxes (or more, depending on locality). You got your hand-me-down set from your parents for about $0. Maybe you bought one at a rummage sale. You still paid no taxes. Or maybe you had some cash and went to Walmart. You spent $500, and paid something like $35 in taxes.

Who's bearing the burden of the sales taxes? Hmmm..

Just because the poor *may* be getting more of an adverse effect from the sales taxes doesn't mean it's not affecting the rich.

You are some kind of retarded mongolid by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:33 · Score: 0

The US Federal Government has not even broken even since before god knows when. Maybe the earliest decade of the 1900s, maybe. At least we had a gold standard then, not the bastardized socialist credit system that Wilson implemented.

States *already* have the right to tax 'net buying by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:34 · Score: 0

Most folks just don't bother to report their purchases to the state/city/county/whatever and pay the proper sales tax.

What the states don't have is the power to force a business in another state to enforce what to the business are out-of-state laws.

buy a car without taxes over the net? by peter303 · 2003-09-26 10:34 · Score: 1

I think twice about buying a car in my state because the sales tax adds $1,000 - $2,000. Anyone figure out how to buy one without taxes over the net? The net car services usually relay you to a local dealer.

Re:buy a car without taxes over the net? by forkboy · 2003-09-26 10:42 · Score: 1

Buy from a someone other than a dealer. Sure, you won't get a new car that way, but many people sell their cars after having them for only a year or two. Check your local want-ads. The $100 a mechanic will charge you to look the car over is much less than the sales tax you'd pay a dealer. There are online services that run the VIN to see if the vehicle has ever been in a accident, as well.

It's a win-win situation. The dude selling the car gets a lot more than they'd get for trade-in, and you pay less than you'd pay a dealer.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that for you to be charged sales tax the person selling it has to have a sales tax ID...in other words, title transfer from person to person gets you around that. Most vehicle warranties cover the car, not the owner, so as long as the mileage is low, you're still cool.

Play it smart and you walk, er drive, away with a nice car and won't get screwed.

--
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Re:buy a car without taxes over the net? by Bull999999 · 2003-09-26 10:43 · Score: 1

In Colorado, they tax you on automobiles based on where you live, not where you buy, so if your state is like that, buying it over the net won't help at all.

--
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Re:buy a car without taxes over the net? by Delron+Da+Thugg · 2003-09-26 10:47 · Score: 0

This is something I need to know about as well. I'm looking to buy a new car too, but starting October 1st here in Crappyfornia, they're tripling the new car registration fees (as well as the car tax!!!) Until it gets repealed (hopefully) by Davis' replacement, I don't know what to do. I was thinking buying a used car (I really don't want to do that), but I don't know.
Re:buy a car without taxes over the net? by Arcturax · 2003-09-26 13:15 · Score: 1

Dunno about your state, but in Ohio, when you go to register the car, you have to tell them how much you paid for it. Granted you can lie if you bought from a private owner and the rarely check unless you make it fairly obvious that you lied (like claiming you paid only $1000 for a fairly recent vehicle). I suppose if you buy it from a dealer out of state you can knock a few thousand off the claimed price, but again, hope they don't check up on it.

--

--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs

Sneaky Sneaky by fatman1683 · 2003-09-26 10:37 · Score: 1

As US law stands, states collect no tax whatsoever from interstate commerce - not even income tax. Section 381. This looks like an attempt by the states to make an end run around existing commerce laws and snag a slice of the interstate commerce pie. I'd like for this to never make it past the House, but given the current economic problems plaguing most states it'll probably get shoved through. With any luck, it will be challenged and declared unconstititional. btw, IANAL, so if my interpretation of the above law is flawed, flame away~

--
Look, defenseless babies!

Spend less money... Howto by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:38 · Score: 0

The states should spend less money.

1. Spend less on the police. Don't respond to robberies or any other property crime. This is after all what insurance is for.

2. Spend less money on roads. Dodging potholes makes drivers concentrate more on driving, the result will be few accidents, thus counteracting the rise in insurance claims from #1.

of course not by SHEENmaster · 2003-09-26 10:41 · Score: 1

the government chose for them :-)

--
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.

Re:of course not by alex_ant · 2003-09-26 10:46 · Score: 1

do you take pleasure in being so stupid?

You know why Amazon supports it... by pr0ntab · 2003-09-26 10:43 · Score: 1

because no one else CAN AFFORD to implement the horror that would be a state tax compliance system.

Amazon would be able to simultaneously rid themselves of smaller, less VC-infused outfits who don't have the legal and accounting exptertise to tackle such a requirement, and they could gain the ear of a state politician or too.
And are you a washington-post astroturfer or what? Your particular attention to the articles' source is particularly uncharacteristic of a slashbot AC. What gives?

--
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice

I call bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:43 · Score: 0

I won't rehash the reasons of the others who have replied to you--but you forget that in many cases sales tax does not apply to bare "cost of living" expenses.

For instance, in Canada (which has a national sales tax of 7%) basics like milk, cheese, bread, vegetables, meats, etc. are tax-free (actually, they're taxed at 0% so that businesses that sell these goods can still claim a tax credit for their purchases). So is rent.

In Ontario, taxes aren't levied on meals that cost less than $8 or on movie tickets less than $4. So, really, if you make very little, you won't be taxed very much at all on the sales tax front.

No, it's bigger purchases by more affluant people (cars, computers, furniture) that make up for a lot of the burden (a $3000 computer at 15% represents $450 in taxes).

Now, I think that's fair... but, then, others don't.

Re:I call bullshit! by Txiasaeia · 2003-09-26 11:38 · Score: 1

How am I cheating Canada Customs? I've never had to pay a brokerage fee -- I ordered a camera from B&H, for example, that would have cost close to $600 CAD, but I was able to get it for $500 CAD. How? Shipped it UPS ($35), which automatically paid the brokerage fee (up to $100). No sales tax, which would have been about $27 CAD.
Unless I'm completely mistaken, it seems as if I really did pay $100 CAD less. If there were a Canadian camera dealer who was willing to match the American seller's price (and I asked!), then I would have bought here in Canada.
I don't think I'm screwing Canada; I think that Canada's screwing me. I don't give a damn about nationality. If it's cheaper in Iraq, I'll buy it from there.
But hey, feel free to continue to pay usur... I mean "taxes" to our wonderful government -- I won't stop you.

--
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.

what's really needed by ShadowRage · 2003-09-26 10:49 · Score: 1

is a cut in pay for the politicians who live generously off our taxes.. there's congressment in our stae (california) that spend 30 million a month.. they're a part of the reason california is in a defecit..
same with the whole US these politicians need to really cut back and live like normal people, not getting helicopter escorts and a 6 private limos just to visit the grcoery store 6 states away.
it's really annoying.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by dorsey · 2003-09-26 10:51 · Score: 1

I hate to break it to you, but Boston isn't a state.

--
hinderfreude ('hin-dur-"froi-d&), n. The feeling of joy derived from being in the way.

I call bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:53 · Score: 0

I have the dubious honour of sharing your Canadianness. I can tell you that unless you're cheating the customs agency, you're not getting goods cheaper in the states.

First--most goods aren't free shiping from the US to Canada. Second, the exchange rate, while lower than usual, is still crap. Third, you must pay brokerage fees and duty on imports, which is usually more than what you'd pay in local sales taxes (at least, in Ontario).

All in all: you get screwed on exchange, you get screwed on duties, you get screwed on shipping. And, you get to help screw your country by buying American.

Good show!

Use tax by Spinality · 2003-09-26 10:55 · Score: 1

Nearly all states impose 'use tax' which is an analogue to their state's sales tax. If you buy something from out of state, regardless of how you buy it (including an Internet purchase), you owe the use tax. Many people don't pay use tax and fly below the radar; but states have become more aggressive at enforcement and have nailed plenty of violators.

Some links: this, this, and this for example.

The issue at hand here is about whether states can require COLLECTION of such taxes on Internet purchases. They already impose the tax. To date, there has been a moratorium on collecting it, as we all know. However, YOU STILL OWE YOUR STATE THE USE TAX, and not paying it is a form of evasion.

I hate this too, but that's just the way it is. By the way, most businesses cannot escape this -- enforcement of use (and other) tax collection is more aggressive with businesses -- and so they generally DO pay taxes on their out-of-state Internet purchases. It's a big part of my company's accounting process.

--
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld

Too noncommittal by alex_ant · 2003-09-26 10:56 · Score: 1

Don't be such a pussy, this is slashdot, the way it works is, you need to brew up a set of totally wacky political views and then be absolutely certain that you are right and everyone else is a complete dead wrong fucking wack job. Study up on Libertarianism, my boy

Sales Tax / Use Tax by Esion+Modnar · 2003-09-26 10:59 · Score: 1

As I recall, there is a law or constitutional amendment against states levying interstate "sales" taxes. So what do they do instead? They call it a "use" tax, which just happens to be the same rate as the "sales" tax. Wow what a co-inky-dinky! And there's nothing against "use" taxes...

Now, most states require you to voluntarily report all the "use" taxes you owe them, come tax time. Everybody here who does, please raise your hand. (Thundering silence, crickets chirping) Yeah, I thought so.

So, already, whether you bought it online, mail-order, or even while on a road trip, you're supposed to report all that "use" tax anyway. Bah.

--

They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by mkldev · 2003-09-26 10:59 · Score: 1

...at which point the whole economy will shift and change in such a way that all states could then adopt a progressive tax....

--
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.

The states don't have the right by Lord+Kano · 2003-09-26 11:03 · Score: 1

to tax transactions made in other states.

I live in Pennsylvania, if I mail or telephone or internet order something from a company in Ohio, my state does not have the right to force that Ohio based company to collect sales tax on the transaction.

The state is within its rights to compell me to pay a usage tax when I order, but they will not go after millions of people to collect 6% on the $50 per year that they spend on internet commerce.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

Here in Florida.... by SiliconJesus101 · 2003-09-26 11:03 · Score: 1

I can just see the jokes coming now about my state....ack.

Anyways, we have a 'sales and usage tax'. Even if you purchase something out of state you are expected to report it to the state and pay 'usage' tax in lieu of 'sales' tax. A friend of mine recently received a letter from the state demanding their 6% usage tax since he purchased furniture from an out of state company and had it shipped to him here in Florida. The real kicker is that if you do pay sales tax out of state then you just have to pay Florida the difference to equal 6%. For example, you pay say 5% sales tax somewhere....then you only owe Florida 1% more.

What a scam!!

--

"The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
-Thucydides

Re:Here in Florida.... by Pauley_24 · 2003-09-26 11:37 · Score: 1

So, if you pay an 8% tax (for some god-awful reason) someplace else, can you demand a 2% refund from FL? :)

-- Pauley
Re:Here in Florida.... by SiliconJesus101 · 2003-09-26 11:53 · Score: 1

Hahaha, I wish. For some reason stuff like this seems to only work in their favor.

--
"The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
-Thucydides

Triple-taxed... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 11:08 · Score: 0

What strikes me as odd is that most items are "triple-taxed."

When Company A sells something to me, thereby garnering a profit, Company A must pay "business income tax."

When Employee B, who works for Company A, receives his paycheck for creating/selling that item to me, he must pay an "income tax."

When Employee B turns into Consumer C, who bought the item in the first place, he had to... that's right... pay "sales tax."

That item - in going from creation to the hands of the consumer, has been taxed thrice.

If we want "simplification of tax laws," what we truly need to do is find a solution that does not involve "triple taxation."

Memo to Government: Pick ONE of the above and tax it. Probably the nicest solution is to apply a flat rate to "corporate income tax" (that has to include the self-employed, to be fair, unfortunately - they are effectively corporations of one person). All corporations get taxed at a flat rate of, say, 20% of gross income (not "net income" as it's too easy to cook the books). The employees' paychecks are not taxed - the money that they are receiving from their employer has already had tax paid on it. There is no sales tax per se - the government got its cut when the money went to the company in the first place (after all, if there is a SALE, it stands to reason that the seller derived INCOME from that sale).

That's probably oversimplified, but if the feds got, say 10% of gross income of business, the state got 6% and local governments got 4% (total of 20%), they would have more than enough to work with. This also neatly solves the "what state does a consumer have to pay sales tax to" problem and interstate commerce taxes - the tax is going to go to the state that the company is incorporated in, since that is where the income goes.

Not perfect, by any stretch, but simple enough to be a jumping-off point, no?

--AC

Exactly. by Jin+Wicked · 2003-09-26 11:09 · Score: 1

I've been selling artwork over my website for the last three years. I don't make enough money to take on an accountant, and I have to file sales taxes for my state (TX) already, which is confusing and time consuming enough. Something like this would literally force me to either operate illegally and fail to collect the taxes altogether (and risk whatever penalties) or to just close up shop completely. (Or, I guess, buy a fax machine.)

Short of nationalizing the sales tax to be the exact same amount in all jurisdictions of all states, this is just utter craziness.

--
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street

Yeah, yeah. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 11:10 · Score: 0

Is making more money inherently wrong? No.

You know, this is the problem with all the reactionary thinking about taxation. Repeat after me: tax is not a punishment.

You are not being punished for earning more. People who pay less in tax are not being rewarded for being poorer.

The fact of the matter is that society has some obligations to its citizens. People wildly disagree, of course, as to what those obligations are.

However, I think we can say with certainty that things like universal education, health care, a place to live and things to eat are what separates Western nations from impoverished hell-on-Earth that is the third world.

The fact is that in a "capitalist free market" economy such as ours, unless there is a great deal of government subsidy to provide either a) social services or b) capital supports to industry, the entire system collapses (read: rapid deterioration in the standard of living). History has seen this out in many cases, including the US. You'll note that capitalism fails in very poor countries--such as Russia--for precisely this reason.

In the US, without revenues to continually prop up industries like agriculture and high-techology (i.e. military), the entire economy would disintegrate. Those revenues are derived from tax dollars. The money must come from somewhere. The realpolitik of the situation is that the richer are taxed "proportionately" because they have the cash.

You know, realpolitik aside, the fact is that progressive taxes are fair on compassionate grounds as well. It's a very significant indicator that vastly wealthy people (and yes, I do consider $200,000/year vast wealth) are living at a standard of living that is several orders of magnitude greater than everyone else and have a greater deal more disposable income than everyone else. Not only do they have the money to contribute, but in doing so, they are responsible for the coninuation of the system.

This is why people like Forbes don't get their way. The people who run the economy know that state subsidy is a requirement and something resembling laissez-faire capitalism or even a flat income tax means the end of the American Empire as we know it.

Re:Yeah, yeah. by multiplexo · 2003-09-26 11:51 · Score: 1

In the US, without revenues to continually prop up industries like agriculture and high-techology (i.e. military), the entire economy would disintegrate. Those revenues are derived from tax dollars. The money must come from somewhere. The realpolitik of the situation is that the richer are taxed "proportionately" because they have the cash.

You know, realpolitik aside, the fact is that progressive taxes are fair on compassionate grounds as well. It's a very significant indicator that vastly wealthy people (and yes, I do consider $200,000/year vast wealth) are living at a standard of living that is several orders of magnitude greater than everyone else and have a greater deal more disposable income than everyone else. Not only do they have the money to contribute, but in doing so, they are responsible for the coninuation of the system.

Well if continuation of the system means the continuation of agricultural and military subsidies then I'm against it. Our agricultural subsidies subsidize corporate farming, encourage illegal immigration, encourage environmental degradation and fuck over the third world who can produce many agricultural commodities far more cheaply than subsidized American and European farmers can but can't sell them on the world market because the Americans and Europeans are dumping their products. This is why the recent trade talks in Cancun collapsed, the third world is tired of hearing about how they have to open their markets to free trade while the developed world pumps billions of dollars into the pockets of huge agribusinesses.

The amount spent on cotton subsidies in the United States alone, almost 3 billion dollars, is greater than the GDP of several African nations. Wow, what a great use for our money, we pay American farmers to engage in environmentally destructive practices (such as cotton farming in west Texas) and we help keep the third world impoverished at the same time. Way to go! What a great justification for progressive taxation.

And then there's your argument about subsidizing high tech industry and the military. Gee, does this mean that if the government had less money that they wouldn't be able to invade countries like Iraq? Boy, there's another great justification for progressive taxes, they keep the military industrial complex humming! Way to go!

There is no moral justification for progressive taxation, you fail to offer one, offering instead a realpolitik explanation of "we have progressive taxes because that's where the money is". This is about as moral a statement as Willie Sutton's answer of why he robbed banks "Because that's where the money is" he said.

People who are in favor of progressive taxation are parasites who want the government to pay for a bunch of stuff but don't want to have to foot the bill themselves. I would like to test some of these people to destruction, give them the progressive tax system that they want, the one that pays for all of the wonderful programs that they want (such as agricultural subsidies, the military industrial complex, PATRIOT act enforcement, the War on Drugs) and then set the rates so that 95 percent of their income is in the highest bracket. Let's see how long they last when they're in the highest bracket and how long it is before they start screeching for some tax relief.

--
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Re:Yeah, yeah. by rossz · 2003-09-26 12:58 · Score: 1

What does compassion have to do with anything? I hate to break the news to you, sparky, but compassion isn't the government's job.

Leave the compassion choices to me. I'll choose who deserves my donation. This "government compassion" has created third generation welfare families (or have they reached the fourth generation). That's bullshit. There is no legal or moral justification to steal my money to give to someone else, no matter how deserving.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:Yeah, yeah. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 16:07 · Score: 0

Well, I said what I said with my tongue planted firmly in cheek -- I am no friend to US economic policy. However, proponants of flat tax schemes are generally middle to upper class "right libertarians." I think it's ironic that they banter on about a system that would utterly obliterate the means by which they live.

America is wealthy today (in the way it is wealth today, I might add) because of its state-sponsored economy. Without the tax revenues that make such sponsorship possible, America would look much as it did during the Depression.

If you want to solve the problems of economy that face us -- which, btw, are much more significant than whether a middle class American has an extra $2,000 per year to waste on gasoline for her SUV -- well, what we need is a fundamental shift in the way we organize the production, consumption and distribution of goods & services along side radical changes to the way we govern our society.

Taxes are not a device by which capitalism is subverted -- in fact, they are the very foundation upon which such a predatory system is allowed to persist.
Re:Yeah, yeah. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 16:25 · Score: 0

There is no legal or moral justification to steal my money to give to someone else, no matter how deserving.
Yikes, just yikes.
The purpose of government is to protect people and give them a chance at a decent life. It is not the purpose of government to enforce a slot-machine system where the people lucky enough to be born with good genetics, two parents, and plenty of money have all the fun.
Re:Yeah, yeah. by rossz · 2003-09-26 16:42 · Score: 1

The purpose of the government is to protect the citizens and their property. That's it.

It's up to the individual citizen, not the government, to find his own happiness.

The redistribution of wealth, which you seem to be a big fan of, is plain and simple theft.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:Yeah, yeah. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 18:20 · Score: 0

The purpose of the government is to protect the citizens and their property. That's it.
And, of course, the only citizens that matter are the ones with the property, right?
It's up to the individual citizen, not the government, to find his own happiness.
Except that not everyone has a reasonable chance at happiness. Go read any sob story and think about how you would cope without government assistance.
The redistribution of wealth, which you seem to be a big fan of, is plain and simple theft.
I believe that the privileged are obligated to create a better world for all (noblesse oblige). Without this attitude, things like universal education would simply not exist. If the poor had to pay per child for schooling, how many would actually be able to afford even five dollars a day? Could the sob story woman budget it?

School vs. School by bbotbuilder · 2003-09-26 11:10 · Score: 1

You may want to compare schools in the Western New York area. Most of the ones that use the most tax dollars, have the lowest test results. Likewise, the "budget conscious" ones have better test results.

What about international? by KalvinB · 2003-09-26 11:12 · Score: 1

With a web-site selling access to content I do business with people in other countries on occassion.

Maybe small business will get really lucky and PayPal and Verisign will add in the tax automatically based on the validated shipping address. Since I'm not shipping a product it's very difficult verify a real address myself.

I can just imagine the horror that will be keeping track of tax rates for every state and possibly country.

And then who do I get the privilage of mailing the payments too? Do I get to pay each state or will the states be kind enough to forward off all the tax money?

I can just imagine the joy of mailing off 50 envelopes to 50 countries and states with a few tax dollars in each.

Or maybe if we're real lucky, small businesses making below a certain amount will be exempt.

Ben

--
Work Safe Porn

Here's why this is incredibly bad by JustAnotherReader · 2003-09-26 11:14 · Score: 1

"So what?" you may ask. "Why should there still be a loophole for internet businesses?" Here's why:

When I have to pay more taxes I have less money in my pocket. I can no longer biggie size my fries. My kids hate it when I don't biggie size their fries. They start whining and I hate that. For me to purchase the same amount of goods and services that I use to I need to spend more money. That means I have to go around my store and mark up all the prices so I can make more money that I use to buy exactly the same stuff I use to buy and so I can biggie size my fries so my kids can have the same life style they've always had.

Of course that causes the people who buy from me to have to mark up THIER prices so they can afford my new, higher prices. And the guy that buys from them has to mark up HIS prices to afford their stuff.

But Wait! I buy stuff from that guy! And since his prices went up (Greedy bastard) I have to raise my prices again. This, ladies and gentlemen, is know as inflation. And if you believe Greenspan and think that there isn't any inflation then ask yourself this. Why is it that when the Euro was release one dollar American use to buy about 2 Euros but now it only buys 0.80 of one Euro? It's because our dollar is worth less. We need more money to buy the same amount of goods and services. If you've been reading carefully then right about now you'll slap yourself in the forehead and say "Hey! That's the very definition of inflation!"

Now we add in Allan Greenspans ultimate stupidity of printing money like it's free. $6 trillion of new money. And where's the gold to back it up? Oh wait! You mean there isn't anything backing it up? Well, if that were true then printing new money would be deflating the value of our dollar wouldn't it? Yes boys and girls you hit the nail on the head. Not only is there an insane amount of inflation but Mr. Greenspan is doing his best to make the money you already have as useless as possible.

"But wait", you say "I can invest my money". And where do you invest it I ask? The average Price/Earnings ratio before Black Friday and the great depression was 32. That means that stocks, on average, were selling for 32 times there earnings per share. Today the average is 34. Yes, The bubble is big and when it pops you're going to be reminded what a REAL depression is all about. Not the kind where gasoline is $2 a gallon, the kind where you and 1000 of your neighbors stand in bread lines to get enough food to eat.

OK, so what about bonds? Well the bond market has pretty much trash. How about savings? Oh yeah, our buddy Greenspan has reduced the interest rates to damn near ZERO. At my local bank they give 0.25% on a savings account. No, that's not twenty five percent, that's One Quarter of One Percent Interest! You can double your money roughly every 5000 years. Oh, and by the way, this also means that because of inflation even if I was able to save every penny of my paycheck for 10 years It STILL doesn't mean I have 10 years of retirement pay built up because my dollars won't buy as many goods and services 10 years from now. How does THAT make your retirement plans sound?

OK, well maybe the governmen really needs the money more than I need to feed my family. Let's see here, during our governor's term in office (Gray Davis, California) the population of the state increased by 23%. Wow, That's a lot! But wait a minute, In that same period government spending in California increased 48%. That's over twice the rate of the population increase. So what the hell are they spending all that money on? How about you let ME have more of MY money and let ME buy the services I NEED!

I tell ya folks. It's time for a revolution. If you think that anyone in our government represents YOU then I have some hyper-inflated housing to sell you at artificially low interest rates.

Oh wait, I see you fell for that one already.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by the_2nd_coming · 2003-09-26 11:17 · Score: 1

you realise that we spent more in the cold war than we do now, right?

infact, everyone bitches about defence....it is only 3% of GDP. it use to be 10% of GDP.

what does that mean? that means that what we spend on defence today is 1/3 of what we use to spend when compaird to the size of the economy, which means it has lettle impact on the economy.

entitelment programs like medicare and welfair and medicade account for about 15% of GDP today!!

personaly, I think that we should raise taxes on the people that make more than 500 grand a year by 15%. reduce the amount of taxes colected for folks who make less than 120 grand combined (a teacher and a nurse or a cop or any permutation there of) should be droped by 5% or more, and the tax collected on household that makes 50 grand or less combined should pay nothing.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

The Internet is our new frontier by Nanookanano · 2003-09-26 11:17 · Score: 1

Look, we're already taxed in every transaction in which the Government has some role. When I buy a gallon of milk, it is shipped to the grocery store and to my house on roads built by State and Federal governments. When I get my paycheck, the Government is involved in handling my Social Security, 401K and such. I understand this. However, no US government has anything to do with my purchasing ten dollars worth of used paperbacks on eBay. That's just silly. The bandwidth on the telephone system is paid for and taxed. The postage for shipping is taxed. Those make sense. But, if you tax little purchases on the web the next necessary step is to tax yard sales and little girls' lemonade stands. The Internet is still an untamed wilderness. Only an idiot is going to try to buy any expensive, tax-worthy item there. If you do successfully score a good deal on a high-end item, you've taken your chances, in a place that has little legal recourse for you. Ain't no Sheriff in this town, pardner. But, the way the West was won was to let the bold and enterprising go into it, without Big Brother's supervision, and duke it out. Many will get scalped. A few will get rich. But, commerce will be stimulated. When commerce gets big enough, then Government can come in and make the place decent and safe for civilized folk. If the Government is truly interested in stimulating small business, leave the Internet the hell alone, for a while more, anyway. If it's just bureaucratic fat-cats looking for another source of revenue with which to line their own pockets . . well . . Tomas Jefferson did not that we, the people, should have a revolution every twenty years. Maybe we're running a little behind schedule.

--
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by SpaceRook · 2003-09-26 11:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

anyway, the size of the money taken out of the budget for the next year was 10s of billions and well under 50 billion. that is Chump Change when you look at the total losses taken during the recession and stagnation periods. it made more sence to cut taxes, because more economic stimulation happend from that than would have if it filtered through to special programs, of which it would have made little impact.

The long term economic stimulation from tax cuts is negligible, if it even occurs at all. Notice the latest spin from the Bush team: the tax cuts helped shallow the recession.

The Bush tax cuts went to the rich. Unlike a lot of poor people, the rich don't piss away every extra dollar they make. They lock their dollars away in banks or stocks or real estate.

Look, Bush probably doesn't even know why he's cutting taxes. Go read about Grover Norquist and see the real reasons taxes are going down. The extreme right wingers are trying to starve the federal goverment as a way to cut "social" spending programs. Y'know, all that good stuff from the New Deal and other social reforms of the last 50 years.

US Constitution, Article. I, Section. 9 by RKBA · 2003-09-26 11:22 · Score: 1

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Article. I, Section. 9: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

--
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2

Re:US Constitution, Article. I, Section. 9 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 11:44 · Score: 0

There you go screwing things up with the truth.

Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court haven't consulted the Constitution in years.

Nope by dachshund · 2003-09-26 11:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sales tax tends to be pretty equal. Why? Because the more money you have, the more you spend

I'd like to see some numbers on that before you claim it as simple fact. Because, quite frankly, I haven't even heard this claim broadcast by even the most tax-averse think-tanks in the country. If it were at all supportable, I think we would have heard it shouted from the rooftops by now.

And yes, food is taxed-- heavily. You might live in one of the states where it isn't, but the majority of us pay taxes at the supermarket, restaurants and so on, in addition to the built-in costs from gas tax, energy, etc, etc.

And income tax is quite a bit more equal than you would imagine, due to the massive number of exemptions claimed by the very wealthy, low capital-gains tax rates, and-- most of all-- the fact that payroll taxes like Social Security (which are not set aside solely for use in that program) cut off at around $88,000. This last means that the average Joe is being taxed about 15% of his income (7.5% on his side, and an additional 7.5% to his company) on top of anything he pays in income tax, while a millionare is paying about 1.3% of his income (or less) to SS.

Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 12:38 · Score: 0

I'd like to see some numbers on that before you claim it as simple fact. Because, quite frankly, I haven't even heard this claim broadcast by even the most tax-averse think-tanks in the country. If it were at all supportable, I think we would have heard it shouted from the rooftops by now.

The more money you have the more you spend is the concept behind "tax cuts"... well Reaganomics...though there are no such thing as hard numbers when it comes to economic situations, only half baked theories.

Frankly I tend to share your skepticism of it. Though I do think, on average, people who have more money are more inclined to save it... which is why they have more money.(this is not talking about multi-millionaires or some such...just self made ones, who tend to be +50 and have got there through hard work and brains.)

Ultimately I don't think there is a *best* answer, only some that better fit a situation than others. The economy is a strange thing with too many factors to stay static or for any single thing to be "at fault" for recessions or what have you.

Blah, I'm not going anywhere with this. anyrate good point.
Re:Nope by thales · 2003-09-26 18:47 · Score: 1

So if that Millionare had the infinate libality for SSI that you want, would you be whinning if he also had an infinate size to the Check he picked up at 65?

Right now the size of the check is like his liability, limited.

--
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Re:Nope by dachshund · 2003-09-27 03:02 · Score: 1

So if that Millionare had the infinate libality for SSI that you want, would you be whinning if he also had an infinate size to the Check he picked up at 65?
No, thales, you don't get the point of my last post. That money I'm spending isn't going towards providing me with social security benefits in the future-- I'd be ok with it if it were. The problem is that a lot of it's being hijacked by Congress to pay for completely unrelated things. That money isn't being saved, and there's an excellent chance that-- barring a major tax increase-- the gov't won't have anything left when I need it.
To answer your question: I certainly don't need that millionaire to pay an equal percentage for Social Security, as long as the money I pay to SS actually goes to providing benefits, not to paying for general government expenses. Right now our government considers those excess Social Security funds I'm paying just another form of revenue that it can "borrow" to pay for the war in Iraq, Congressional pork, and so on.
Note that I said "borrow", above. See what happens is that the government takes the money I pay in Social Security and spends it. Then it puts US bonds into a big fund-- basically a big pool of IOUs. If I'm ever going to collect Social Security when I retire, someone's going to have to pay back all of those IOUs. Who do you think it's going to be? The taxpayer, of course. So essentially, the government is taking my money as a loan that I have to pay back if I ever want to use it. Should I ever collect SS benefits, I will have paid for them twice-- once in payroll taxes today, and again in income taxes to pay back the "borrowing" the government did in my name.
Don't underestimate the importance of these taxes. The only reason Bush and Gore were able to talk about a surplus in the 2000 election was the fact that Social Security taxes were being lumped in with general gov't revenue. If we were actually saving those taxes for this check I'm supposed to get someday, there would have been no surplus, and Bush wouldn't have had an excuse to "give money back to the people" (which, even if the 10-year surplus hadn't been a fiction, would have put us in a Federal tax deficit "hidden" by my Social Security taxes.)
So here's what I'm asking for: If Social Security's going to be a general tax, let's call it that and distribute the liability for it across all income brackets. If Social Security's going to be a retirement program, let's not spend that money for things unrelated to the program-- if we're collecting too much, either save it for future need, or slash the tax. (And given that the boomers begin retiring in a decade, we should probably be doing the former.)

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 11:30 · Score: 0

Clinton?
yes thats who did.

btw, the budget problems are issues because of the expected increase. they expect the taxes to increase by a certain percentage each year. the states are getting more tax money than they did last year, its just a smaller increase. so maybe the budgets should adjust like the rest of the economy and stop wasting money about how to get more taxes.

I don't see it happening soon. by DrDebug · 2003-09-26 11:35 · Score: 1

First: It is going to be very difficult for each retailer to keep track of the different tax rate for each state the sale was made INTO. It would be FAR EASIER to tax the sale based on which state the sale was made FROM. If a state has lots of Internet sellers, they should reap the benefit.

Second: With the sorry state of the current economy, I don't see burdening the public with MORE taxes being something popular. Besides, that will only throw cold water on a warming economy.

The current moritorium on Internet taxes is a GOOD THING. Let it run until the economy heats up again.

Just my humble opinion.

Interent sales are already taxed! Everyone pays... by Zathras11 · 2003-09-26 11:37 · Score: 1

shipping (okay, sometimes YOU don't, but the
company covers it). I know! I've run a mail-
order business for 10 years, selling over the
Internet (first via Usenet, then my own web site,
Yahoo auctions, BidVille and now eBay). I use
the USPS for shipping. Every customer pays a
fee set by the USPS. There are USPS employees
in each State of the Union. Those employees ALL
pay local, State and Federal taxes, that if they
did not work for the USPS they might not be able
to pay. If I didn't ship so many items, some or
all of them might be out of work and unable to
pay those taxes! I also pay local, State and
Federal taxes based on my income. I also buy
products from a supplier, whose employees all
do the same thing.

In addition, as a registered vendor in my State,
I collect State sales tax on IN STATE sales. I
will, however, NEVER collect sales tax for other
States. If it should come to that, I will close
down, and find another way to make a living (I've
been thinking about playing Poker for a living
anyway; no inventory or shipping or paperwork
involved). :^)

These politicians are simply GREEDY. They can
never EVER get enough of YOUR money to satisfy
them, and their endless desire to SPEND SPEND SPEND!

Hmm by dachshund · 2003-09-26 11:39 · Score: 1

Or... You could see that Mr. Bush is trying to stop the $pending $pree that states are on.

See, I would buy this "Bush is forcing the states to balance their checkbooks" line if I saw the Federal Government doing the same. Leading by example, if you will.

But of course, the Federal situation makes most of the states' budgets look good by comparison. I'm sure there are equally compelling excuses to explain why spending is way up (and not just on military or homeland security measures), while tax revenue is way down (from both the bad economy and the tax cuts.) But I think at some point you just have to stop deluding yourself.

The worst part of this all is that many states, like New York (and NYC in particular) are going under paying for homeland security measures, which are inarguably part of "the common defense". But Homeland Security funds are being assigned in a manner that provides more per-capita funding to relatively safe states like Wyoming than to the ones with the most vulnerable targets. In fact, perhaps coincidentally, funding allocation mirrors the number of electoral votes that a state has to give rather than any realistic threat model.

I could go on, but the numbers speak for themselves. This government is not a model of fiscal restraint, it's a money-hungry glutton. The only lesson it's sending to the states is that political greed and incompetence are much easier to pull off inside the Beltway.

Sales Tax by fm6 · 2003-09-26 11:40 · Score: 1

Why is this so lousy? If you live in a state with a sales tax, you pay the tax every time you visit a brick-and-mortar store. There's no logical reason you should be able to avoid this tax just by buying from out-of-state.

You can argue that sales taxes are wrong. (They're unfair to low-income people; they discourage commerce; they encourage local government to zone for strip malls and superstores instead of badly-needed housing.) You might even convince me. But if you do, you have to come up with a fair plan for rolling back sales taxes, not one that affects some merchants and not others.

Which is a crucial detail. This isn't just about state and local governments needing more cash. This is also about local retailers (who have to collect the sales tax) being forced to compete with out-of-state retailers (who don't). Local merchants are important both economically and socially. Which doesn't mean they should have an unfair advantage -- but they shouldn't have an unfair disadvantage either.

Incidentally, buying from an out-of-state retailer doesn't mean your purchase isn't subject to local sales tax. It's just that there's no practical way for the state government to collect it. Some states used to try to force out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes. But the Supreme Court ruled that this violated the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Here's my favorite example of how absurd this is. Amazon.com does roughly 20% of their business in California. Most of their California orders come from a huge regional warehouse. It might seem logical to put this warehouse in California. But if they did that, they'd have a "California presence" and thus be required to collect California sales taxes. Instead, the warehouse is just over the Nevada border! Which might not continue to be practical, if fuel prices keep going up...

What Democrats believe by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 11:42 · Score: 0

What Democrats Believe

Rich Lowry
September 25, 2003

A presidential primary is a way for a political party to make up its mind. Through the process of nominating a candidate, a party figures out its stances on the new issues and what adjustments, if any, it will make in its positions on the old. So with that, through their collective rhetoric and actions, the 10 Democratic candidates have arrived at the outlines of a rough philosophy -- the credo of the Democrats of '04.

This credo is often nonsensical and hypocritical, but it is clearly discernible. The Democrats of '04 believe:

That wars should be authorized, but never fought.

That the United Nations is the world's last, best hope, and every jot of its writ should always be respected, unless it inconveniences Saddam Hussein.

That nation-building is always a humanitarian and just cause, unless it is undertaken in Iraq.

That anyone who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction prior to the war was lying, unless his or her name is Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, Bill Cohen, John Kerry or Joe Lieberman, or the person ever served in the Clinton cabinet or as a Democratic senator.

That French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is always right.

That President Bush isn't devoting enough resources to the reconstruction of Iraq, and that -- in light of his $87 billion aid proposal -- he is devoting far too many resources to the reconstruction of Iraq.

That George Bush maneuvering the United States into war is an act of manipulative genius, and also is very stupid.

That (fill in blank with latest conflict here) is another Vietnam.

That the U.S. military is overextended -- and should be smaller.

That unilateral U.S. diplomatic pressure is always wrong, unless it is brought to bear on Israel.

That it is absolutely necessary for the cause of clean government for candidates to abide by the limits set by the presidential public-financing system, unless they -- like Kerry and Howard Dean -- have enough money not to.

That big money corrupts politics, unless it is big money raised by California Gov. Gray Davis.

That punch-card ballots are a travesty of justice, unless they elect a Democrat (as they did in California just one year ago).

That Bush is bankrupting the federal government, but is a tightfisted ogre for countenancing only a $400 billion new prescription-drug benefit.

That Bush is fiscally profligate, but isn't spending enough on education, "first responders," health care or anything else not called "defense."

That the nation cannot afford the pending retirement of the baby boomers, but the baby boomers should get more benefits for their pending retirements.

That Bush is responsible for an economic downturn that began before he was elected and that Clinton is responsible for an economic recovery that began before he was elected (here at last -- a kind of consistency!).

That small-business owners are the heart of the economy unless they succeed, at which point they become "the rich."

That it is evil to be rich, unless you got that way by marrying Teresa Heinz.

That it is wrong to be a millionaire, unless you got that way by suing people.

That the sons of the upper-crust Northeastern elite are always and everywhere out-of-touch, unless they are named Howard Dean.

That it is unseemly to mix military matters with politics, but you should vote for FORMER GENERAL Wesley Clark, and salute when you do so.

That a deranged candidate should not be elected president, unless he is named Bob Graham.

That no child should be left behind, unless it is in an urban public-school system.

That no child should be left behind, unless it is in the womb.

That the Patriot Act is denying Americans their liberties, and John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards or Bob Graham should be elected president

Re:Fiscal irresponsibility since 1932...and soluti by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 11:43 · Score: 0

In our system, those who are "largely wealthy" also pay MOST of the taxes to begin with... while there are PLENTY at the bottom who pay little or nothing but reap benefits from the services, regardless. Why should we give further tax cuts to those who pay close to nothing or nothing at all? That's effectively giving them free money!

Furthermore, what most people neglect is that "largely wealthy" is defined as practically any household with over $50k in income... at least in Northern Virginia, that's pretty much everyone. Even my family got rebate checks, for which we were at least glad...they covered some bills for a month or two.

I'm disgusted that the left can distort the facts and continue moaning about how "ooooohhh only the wealthy are benefiting!" Well, get it right, the wealthy, according to the Feds, is pretty much everyone in the middle and upper class who actually pays taxes.

Why Sales Tax Sux by TPFH · 2003-09-26 11:47 · Score: 1

Number one, you can't write off sales tax. You can write off state income tax, you can write off property tax, but you cannot write off sales tax. (I would rather my taxes go locally than to the fed, in general.)

Number two, it is f#&$ing annoying. It is annoying to the customer because you have to have a calculator to figure out how much something costs. And it is annoying to businesses because they have to collect, and keep track of, and pay all the sales tax they collect.

I live in Oregon where there is no sales tax and I love it. Theoretically, you are not supposed to pay other state's sales tax. When I went to Seattle I could show them my Oregon ID and not have to pay it. But if I try that in just about any other state they look at you like you are from Marz.

Oh, and at least with Income and Property tax you know how much taxes you are paying. When you are paying Sales tax.... does anyone have any idea how much they pay in sales tax in a year.

And that's why Sales Tax Sucks!

(And why more internet companies should set up shop in Oregon so that they don't have to bother with it.)
(Not to mention so that I can get a new job.)

--
This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by RevMike · 2003-09-26 11:56 · Score: 1

This is such a bizarre post I had to respond...

US government is fast heading towards 3rd world status. There's only so much debt a government can have before they can't get any more because the lenders aren't confident they can pay it back.

How is the risk of a debt measured? In the "price" of the loan aka the interest rate. Think about the fact that people with good credit (low risks) right now have mortgages that charge about 6% and people with bad credit (high risks) are charges 8-10-15% whatever.

The federal government gets loans by selling treasury bills, notes, and bonds. For our discussion they are all the same thing. The different names indicate the duration of the loan. A bond basicly works like this. The treasury department holds an auction. At that auction various lenders bid to lend the government money. The winning bidder give the federal government, say, $100,000. In exchange he recieves an interest payment once or twice a year for perhaps fifteen years. At the end of the term he gets the $100,000 back. The bidding is done on the basis of interest rate. The lender who offers the lowest interest rate wins the auction.

Here is the important point: US Treasury Bonds have the lowest interest rates of any major bond in the world. Investors believe that the US government is more likely to pay its debts than any other entity in the entire world. And this is not a recent thing, this has been the situation since WWII. the US Treasury is the yardstick that the rest of the worlkd measures against as far a financial security.

Because I don't see US expenses (especially military) getting any smaller very fast, and I don't see a big tax raise in near future either, which means more and more debt...

There is a very important point to be made here too. The amount of debt we are carrying is not very relevant. What is relevant is the long term growth of debt versus our national income. As long as the economic output of our nation grows at least at the same rate as our debt, it really doesn't matter. Say you made $50,000 a year in income and had to pay $10,000 a year in debt service, you'd have $40,000 in disposable income. Then you got a big raise and were earning $75,000 a year. If you doubled your debts so you were paying $20,000 a year, you'd still have $55,000 in disposable income. You'd still be richer.

The USA has run up gargantuan debts, but - over the long term - has grown tremendously as well. There is no reason to panic over our debt.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by mcwop · 2003-09-26 12:07 · Score: 1

If a state has a politician in it, it has rich people in it.

--

"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

These folks haven't look at the Constitution... by icebike · 2003-09-26 12:09 · Score: 1

Why is it that when we have a Supreme Court that can create entire governmental organizations based on a single phrase in the constitution that no one seems to remember one of the clearest statements in the entire document:

Article I
Section 9 ...
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by chickenmilkbomb · 2003-09-26 12:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is one tiny point you are confused about. US debt is in the form of US government securities. There is absolutely no credit risk in US government securities. None.

--
He hates these cans!!!

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 12:23 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Exactly, which is why we pay state taxes and city taxes. What will be next? Town taxes?

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by mcwop · 2003-09-26 12:28 · Score: 1

Yes states can you are being obtuse. Here are the top states by millionaires per thousand:

What states have no rich people again? Here are the top states by millionaires per 1000 people. Bet it is not what you expected:

1 Idaho 27
2 Maine 8
3 North Dakota 7
4 Nebraska 7
5 Minnesota 6
6 Indiana 5
7 Wisconsin 4
8 Iowa 4
9 New Jersey 4
10 Connecticut 3

All these rich above are probably farmers collecting millions in Federal handouts (sarcasm).

--

"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by wayward_son · 2003-09-26 12:29 · Score: 0

You are someone who does not understand economics.

True, the wealthy benefited most from the Bush tax cuts. And yes, the rich don't piss away every extra dollar they make.

So what do they do with it? They invest it. They have their money make more money. Investment finances economic growth.

Say I want to start a small business. I go to the bank and ask for a loan. Since plenty of people have invested their money at this bank, the bank has plenty of money to loan me. I start my business. I create new jobs. I make money. I pay off my loan with the interest. The bank makes money and the investors make money. Since everyone pays taxes on the money they make, the Government wins too. Everyone wins in this scenerio.

The reason the first round of Bush tax cuts didn't do much was that they were the wrong kind of cut. They gave most Americans $300-$600 to spend. This did not encourage investment and did not create new jobs. It just moved some inventory.

The second round of Bush's tax cuts seem to have done the job. All economic indicators for the last quarter are up. The stock market is approaching 10,000 again. By the time the 2004 election rolls around, the recession will be long gone.

A better solution by fireboy1919 · 2003-09-26 12:31 · Score: 1

1) Currently, there's a cap on how much taxes a person pays. So the very rich are paying much, much, less of their income than anyone else.

2) If you can afford it, there are many legal means of not paying taxes at all. But they require moving money around in such a way that you have to already have quite a bit to "lubricate" the process. So, as a whole, the very rich only pay taxes if they're feeling patriotic or stupid.

If we had a loophole-free flat tax of 5%, we could almost completely eliminate the IRS, and make more than enough in taxes off of the very, very rich.

Oh, we could also stop paying ex-congressman the same wage they got when they were congressman when they finish their terms. That's a rather huge chunk of budget right there.

Of course, these schemes tend to hurt the rich and powerful...I'm a bit pessimistic as to whether or not they'll be implemented.

--
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!

Justify! by Kris_J · 2003-09-26 12:32 · Score: 1

An "Internet" tax can't be justified because all parts of the transaction are already taxed in some way, surely. Tax comes out of: Your internet connection, your PC when you bought it, probably a wholesale tax when the store got the product, rates, income tax comes out of everything, including rental of the property, a million taxes on the truck doing the actual shipping (licence, fuel, initial purchase, etc). How do you justify a tax on "Internet purchases" unlike anything already applied to mail-order?

Get Your Facts Straight by goldspider · 2003-09-26 12:33 · Score: 1

"We were in a frigging surplus..."

STOP right there! There never WAS a surplus! What you are referring to was a PROJECTED surplus! The same phenomenon that the granparent post refered to happened at the federal level; they allocated funds assuming the dot-com bust wouldn't happen. Their budget was based on tax revenues they had expected to collect. But then the economy started tanking in '99, and that revenue never materialized, and hence there was never a surplus for Bush to piss away.

True, IMHO Bush hasn't exactly been fiscally responsible either, but neither the current state of the economy, nor the financial crisis that exists at all government levels, are entirely, or even mostly his fault.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by wayward_son · 2003-09-26 12:45 · Score: 1

What state are you from?

I know that I see a LOT more services from my state and local tax money than from my Federal tax money. And I live in a relatively poor state.

Clear the Confusion by Pinky3 · 2003-09-26 12:49 · Score: 1

The Streamlined Sales Tax Project "will develop measures to design, test and implement a sales and use tax system that radically simplifies sales and use taxes."

The idea is to get many states to agree what should be taxed, e.g., books: yes, bread: no. When a large number of states agree, then Amazon and other retailers will be able to collect taxes on book sales for all those states and not collect taxes on bread sales.

The confusion of 50 different sets of tax rules will not exist. Once the majority of states agree on what should be taxed, then a simple lookup by zip code would produce the correct tax on every purchase. This would be true for phone orders, mail orders, and internet orders.

The most difficult part will be the remittance of the tax to the fifty states. That is why most porposals include exemptions for small retailers. Amazon should have no problem sending quarterly payments to each state based on the zip code given by the buyer.

wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 12:53 · Score: 0

And that, kids, is a the textbook example of a troll!

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by layingMantis · 2003-09-26 13:07 · Score: 1

pray tell, how does one SPEND money with tax cuts!? I thought that money was ours to begin with? A Republican might say that shows your liberal arrogance: assuming tax money was yours to begin with. Fortunately my IQ is over 100 and i'm not a Republican. But dude, think before you run your mouth next time.

Already in place for EU citizens by hoytt · 2003-09-26 13:10 · Score: 2, Informative

I already pay taxes on both "real" and electronic goods purchased in the US.
The taxes on "real" items are simply charged when the product ordered in the US enters the country. The postal service will deliver it and charge me both VAT (19%) and import.
When I buy electronic goods I fill in my credit card billing address and the database will calculate the appropriate VAT. This is in place for all EU countries.
They could simply link the billing address to a state and make 48 entries with state salestax.
It's not full-proof, but how many people will get a credit card in a state without salestax to avoid this?

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 13:13 · Score: 0, Troll

Millionaire is not rich, 1 million dollars is enough to buy maybe a nice house, alot of working families do have 1 million in assets, now if you have 5 or 10 million cash in the bank then maybe you are rich.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by mcwop · 2003-09-26 13:30 · Score: 1

You appear to be a Dean supporter. He wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts. So basically he wants to raise taxes on people earning $55,000+ if you are single, and $75,000+ if married. Bush cut taxes on many income groups not just the "rich". Either way Bush left the top rate higher than when his father raised taxes, which by the way did not benefit the country at the time.

--

"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by HanzoSan · 2003-09-26 13:48 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Actually, Dean wants to spend that tax money giving people free healthcare.

Alot of families will benefit when they get higher pay, the economy will benefit when companies no longer have to give you healthcare. Think about it alittle more before coming to conclusions, this would be great for the middle class, I think it could be a bit of a problem for the drug and medicine industry but for the individual universal healthcare is great.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by vsprintf · 2003-09-26 14:10 · Score: 1

All these rich above are probably farmers collecting millions in Federal handouts (sarcasm).

You may very well be right, but there are many farmers who are millionaires solely by virtue of tax assessments. It's called being land poor. The authorities constantly increase the assessed value of land in rural areas to bolster revenues. The farmers often have to sell out to corporations because they have been taxed out of business, out of their homes, and off their property.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by Kaboom13 · 2003-09-26 14:31 · Score: 1

I guess im crazy but I encourage Bush 100% on this. Starving the federal goverment into cutting programs seems like a great idea. I'm probably what you would consider upper working class/lower middle class. As a child I work have been considered mid-to low working class. I know what it's like to need money. But when your struggling for money, the last thing you want to do is lose half your pay check to taxes to support inneffecient government programs that only a tiny minority of the population qualify for. Many of the programs designed to help lower income families are responsible for creating the need for them. Further more a massive portion of the Federal budget winds up going to the states in the forms of grants and pork projects. It is a much tougher sell passing tax increases at a local level and theres a reason for that. Democracy works best when you have politicians that are persoanlly accountable to the people they serve. Turning over your personal accountability to the state and letting them make all you decisions for you is the fastest way to destroy a democracy. Im an independent, but I'm sick of this mindless republicans bad/dems good mindset. Voting the party line gets you nowhere. At one point the Republican party stood for strict constructuralism (including the Bill of rights and the whole rights not expressly granted to the state reserved to the citizens part) and strong state goverment. Unfortunatly the party leadership has been hijacked by religous righters and others who try to hide behind the term "conservative" and who really mean "everyone acts and believes just like me". I realize I've gone completely off topic so please mod accordingly.

Libertarianism Makes You Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 14:34 · Score: 0

Freedom from the tyranny of government in exchange for slavery to corporate interests? Doesn't sound very consistent to me. You are brainwashed.

also note by SHEENmaster · 2003-09-26 14:40 · Score: 1

that citizen-land charities have a much better success rate. Fewer dollars end up in third world dictator hands and more in people's stomachs.

--
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.

Re:also note by alex_ant · 2003-09-26 17:46 · Score: 1

I agree that charities tend to be more effective than gov't, per $ spent, which is very important to note considering the gov't spends millions of $ more than private charities.

The problem is, the charity infrastructure in place is just not large enough, so how are you going to expand it? Government regulations? Guess what happens once these charities are large enough to do their job - bureaucracy develops, efficiency goes down, impersonality goes up. So what you end up with is a gov't social services replacement that is basically the same as gov't, except less dependable. (That is, assuming charities could possibly raise enough money to support everyone who needs food and housing. Which they couldn't, especially during recessions.)

Charities are great, but they're just not capable of fully replacing gov't wealth redistribution if we're talking about feeding/housing everyone in the country (my goal). Humans are just not altruistic enough, especially in a libertarian society where there is no social safety net and money = life.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by vsprintf · 2003-09-26 14:40 · Score: 1

The second round of Bush's tax cuts seem to have done the job. All economic indicators for the last quarter are up. The stock market is approaching 10,000 again. By the time the 2004 election rolls around, the recession will be long gone.

Gee, I sure hope you're right, but what about those pesky job numbers? Still 400,000 new jobless claims every week. Who is going to fuel this *recovery* ?

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by mcwop · 2003-09-26 14:53 · Score: 0, Troll

Go back to econ 101 - there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone is gonna pay. It might not be great for the middle class if the costs are shifted to corporations. They might stop hiring. Note that countries with universal health have unemployment rates far higher than in the U.S. So you think a little more. Maybe Dean should too. Bush is no better with his free drug plan that will cost umpteen billions (cheaper than the Democrat plan though).

--

"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

Taxes on interstate goods are illegal by xjosh · 2003-09-26 15:30 · Score: 1

Another part of the oft-ignored constitution of the United States of America. From article 9, section 1:

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

There you go. If it's exported from any state, no tax.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by zerocool^ · 2003-09-26 15:34 · Score: 1

The long term economic stimulation from tax cuts is negligible, if it even occurs at all. ...

Unlike a lot of poor people, the rich don't piss away every extra dollar they make. They lock their dollars away in banks or stocks or real estate.

It's based on the "Marginal Propensity to Consume", or MPC. The MPC is a number, above 0 and below 1, which is the percentage of money which will be spent.

Say, I give you an extra dollar. Statistically, you're not going to spend all of it, you'll probably spend $0.90 of it. In that case, the MPC would be .9.

The thing about the MPC is: It's higher for lower incomes. Intuitive, if you think about it: if you give someone in a housing project a dollar, they'll spend most of it, because they need things like food. But, if you give Donald Trump a dollar, he probably wont notice it. Higher income households and corporations tend to save a higher percentage of their disposable income.

So: Giving rich people more money does FAR less good than giving poor people more money, as poor people spend a much higher percentage of what you give them.

I'm not a big fan of the tax cuts. I feel that it's insane to both cut taxes and increase spending, and then to stand around scratching our collective nuts while trying to figure out why we're broke.

But, if you want tax cuts to stimulate the economy, you have to give them to lower income people. When lower income people get a dollar, they will put a higher percentage of it immediately back into the economy.

This is, mathmateically, why trickle-down economics doesn't work.

And grandparent post: Don't talk about stuff like "it wouldn't have made a difference, the tax cuts are no big deal". As a future educator (I graduate in may, and hope to begin teaching public high school history soon thereafter), TAX CUTS DO MATTER, because they take money from the schools, because, hey, kids don't vote.

Let me reiterate: TAX CUTS DO MATTER. Unemployment is at 6%!!! This means that 1/50 people in the American Labor Force are looking for a job and can't find one (unemployment of 4% is due to frictional and lateral movement, anything above 4% is real unemployment).

It's simple. Spend less money. Bring more money in.

But, not through internet sales tax. It's simple:
1.) Federal government does not levy sales tax
2.) Federal government is the sole arbiter of interstate commerce
3.) Income taxes are designed to help the local government recoup costs for local social programs. Internet sales use no local resources.

Increase federal taxes, and stop this stupid fucking war, bush. That's how to fix the problem. You know it, and you don't want to listen.

~Will

--
sig?

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by jav1231 · 2003-09-26 15:56 · Score: 1

First, you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of taxation. A tax cut isn't a payment to the people. It's simply not taking something that belongs to them already. Tax cuts almost always stimulate. People given money will generally spend it. If you feel so fscking guilty, pay back some of your refund! Your so cavalier about spending my money, spend some of yours! Taxation is a huge burden in this country. If the politicians aren't going to tighten their belts, then at least give us some of our money back and let the economy grow.

Would it really kill net commerce? by Sabalon · 2003-09-26 15:59 · Score: 1

Right now buying something online is a little bit cheaper because I don't pay the sales task. If I buy a $10 book from amazon, I'm saving about $0.70. For bigger items it would add up.

BUT...would the lack of a brick&mortar store (or at least chain of them) be able to offset that cost?

And would this hurt all "e-tailers" equally? I'm thinking about the stuff I've bought online. There were two big purchases (minDV cam and telescope) that I am grateful there were no sales tax. However, I had no local option to buy those from, so I would have either had to mail-order it or buy it online. Other, smaller, cheaper things I've bought online were similar items - stuff that you just can't find in the mass-market stores around here. Books that noone carries, a Scooby wall clock for the kid that you can't find in stores, etc...

So a tax may not be the greatest for stores selling the same crap you can go down the street to get, as the price will be just about the same, and you have to pay shipping and wait for it. But for stuff outside the mass market merchandise, I don't think it'll make too much of a difference.

Also, you gotta wonder how many people will not even include sales tax in a purchase thought and get hit by it as an "oh shit" afterthought.

Re:Sales Tax / Use Tax (BOTH are Forbidden) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 16:14 · Score: 0

Actually, what they call their illegal tax makes no difference whatsoever to The Constitution. The law you are referring to is The Constitution of The United States, Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 5, which says:

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

Notice that it does NOT limit the prohibition of taxes and duties to "sales" of items exported from any state, it specifically refers to the exported articles themselves. It also does not limit this prohibition to The Federal or even State governments, it applies universally to all levels of government. No government in the United States at any level can impose such a tax. This clearly makes so-called "use-taxes" on items purchased from out of state illegal, since a "use-tax" is specifically defined (at least here in California) as a tax on an item exported from another state.

And yet, elected officials, at both the state and federal level, are openly conspiring to impose exactly the kind of tax that is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. They obviously think that they can fool people by playing word games.

It's time for the rest of the country to start up a lot more recalls to get rid of these greedy, collectivist officials who think they can get away with completely disregarding The Constitution. They need to be taken out of office and thrown in jail for life.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 16:29 · Score: 0

you are wrong. the government is losing revneue and we're constantly adding new programs. like the massively underfunded homland security shit. so, you want your cake and eat it too.

Bullshit.. by pair-a-noyd · 2003-09-26 16:30 · Score: 1

I can pick up the phone and order materials, parts, whatever, from a company in another state and as long as that company has no brick and mortar presence in my state I do not have to pay state sales tax.

Ordering through the Internet is no different than ordering over the phone or by mail.

NH income by solprovider · 2003-09-26 16:32 · Score: 1

I have no personal knowledge of this, but the subject came up when a friend who lived here (PA) was moving back there. (He grew up in NH.)

The main source of income for New Hampshire is property taxes. Much of their land is very scenic, and it is a popular place for rich people to retire. (as opposed to FL where poor people retire to the swamp.) Having no sales tax is a marketing point, and they do not have a large tourist trade to milk with a sales tax. Since the residents are going to support the state anyway, their taxes are based on the size of the residence. OK, it is still "progressive" since those that can afford the big houses pay more than others.

The lack of sales tax can be a great marketing point. DE does not have sales tax, so their businesses draw people from PA and NJ (and probably MD) to avoid the sales tax. That means that DE businesses thrive while those in nearby states are hurt.
- This only counts for portable items. Cars still need to be reported (registered) in the state they will be used, so NJ and PA claim their money anyway. But when buying jewelry, the ability to save (or spend an extra) 6% can make a big difference.

--
I spend my life entertaining my brain.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by aastanna · 2003-09-26 16:36 · Score: 1

Bet it is not what you expected:
1 Idaho 27

You're right! I had no idea potatoes were so profitable!

Progressive tax by solprovider · 2003-09-26 16:56 · Score: 1

Maybe I am strange, but I want the tax to be even more progressive, and I am currently in the class that would be hurt.

When I was trying to grow up and go to college and become something, I took home 78% of my "pay" and could not pay my bills. My income tax return was around $200, so they were keeping 20% of my "pay".

Now I take home 59% of my pay. My income tax refund is around $600, so they are keeping 40% of my "pay".

I really wish there was a way that I could pay more now, and not have paid as much when I needed it. An extra $2000 when I was making $10,000 and taking home $7800 could have made a real difference in my life. Now I buy guitars that are $2000 without thinking about how the money will affect my life.

--
I spend my life entertaining my brain.

Re:Progressive tax by Malcontent · 2003-09-26 17:27 · Score: 1

Actually there is probably an easy way to accomlish that. For example.

Let's say there was no incme tax. Let's say instead that there was a national sales tax. We could simply exempt anything that costs less than $500 (or some other arbitrary number) and I think it would care of that. Most poor people don't ever buy things that cost over $500.00 and even on the rare occation that they did (let's say a car or something) they could pay the tax. It would be rare enough not to hurt too much.

--
War is necrophilia.

I'm In Oregon, too by Simonetta · 2003-09-26 17:05 · Score: 1

I'm in Oregon, too. The western part of the Portland metro area sometimes referred to as 'The Silicon Forest'.

Many of the roads here have the median paint worn to the point where it's impossible to see the broken white line that is supposed to indicate the center of the road.

Plus, unlike most areas of the country, we commonly have large hundred-foot shade trees that cover most of the road. In the autumn, the sides of the roads are covered with leaves and bark, obscurring the line markings.

I should also mention that, being Oregon, we seem to have an inordinate number of DASMOs in space shuttles (Dumb-as-Shit Mommies in giant SUVs, pronounced 'dazz-mo' -as in mo' disco jazz-) who don't even realize that they are driving in the middle of the lane of the wrong side of the street when they pass a bicyclist who is riding completely in the shoulder lane. Having all paint worn off from the divider line doesn't help this situation.

Nevertheless, I'm not trying to dispute your comment that government money is wasted by washing the center dividers.

Consider that at least in Oregon the people who are being paid to wash the street are actually out there washing the street. In Tony Soprano land, you would be paying even more for street washing, while the street washers would be earning their pay chillin' at the Bada-Bing.

Re:I'm In Oregon, too by Clzame · 2003-09-27 03:23 · Score: 1

Oh ya it's a big deal but like all who have to deal with practical applications let's A.put it on the list and see where that spending lies, or B. across the board cut in%s$ and only 85% now spent on white line fever.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 17:10 · Score: 0

Im sorry but that is a LOAD of crap.

Did you know this is the EXACT same verbage that people were using in the early 80's? Did you know after those tax cuts the economy TOOK off because of two things. The 'rich' got a tax cut (which was not true EVERYONE did), and MANY loopholes were removed from the tax code. They KEY thing here is that the MIDDLE class got a tax cut. Why is this key? Its simple they have the largest percentage of total income into the goverment. The 'rich' are such a small chump change in the whole equation (like 2%) but lets stick it to the man (nudge nudge wink wink). For dont think for a second that they cant afford someone to get around it anyway. It justs a feel good thing that does ZIPPO and actually makes people not invest in ways that could help.

But do not take my word for it take a look at a simple graph that shows my point. Dow. You can see where the graph stagnates or drops. Those are years where the tax code was INCREASED. The years after where it is going up dramaticly are after a tax CUT.

The 'rich' paying their fair share is a load. A big ol truck load. How is it 'fair'. I could NEVER understand that. If they pay WAY more percentage wise than I do how is that 'fair'? Would you care to explain that to the rest of the class. How if I earn 1 dollar and a rich person earns 1 dollar the goverment somehow deserves more of his dollar than mine? For a liberal you sure have a funny view of 'fair'.

You have drank a large does of media kool aid. That is if you ACTUALLY think that the goverment can somehow spend your money better than you can. Think about that. They have actually convinced you that they can spend your money better than you. If you REALLY think that money can be better used by someone else I am sure we can find someone who will gladly liberate you of a few dollars. Or if your really convinced donate it to a worthy cause. I am sure you can think of at least one. Hell its tax deductable.

Also your comment about money being 'locked' away. You have 0 concept of how this works, dont you? Money is not 'locked away'. Its LOANED out. Where do you think loans for companies, ipos, research, buildings, etc. Its not put into little stacks and stuck in some deposit box. Oh and the 'poor' are just pissing their money away squandering it on food and shelter. People that squander money were NEVER taught how to spend money. If anything giving the money to the goverment is a sure way to remove money from the economy. They make money and they remove money. ITS THEIR JOB.

Also 'New Deal' actually created jobs. It put people to WORK. It gave people something to be proud of. The goverment now just cuts checks and gives it to people and hopes they do the right thing. 'New Deal' is dead, has been for decades. But like every zombie goverment program it lives on stealing more and more money.

You sir are perputuating a LIE. I know of about 15 people that are in the 'middle class' that LOVED the tax cut. They got to keep more of their money. How could you say this is a bad thing? On planet earth we like to keep our money. The one your from apparently you can give it away as you must have your own mint cranking out bills. On this planet we WORK for our money. We like to keep it.

The current recession (which is over btw you will see in about 5 months) is because of some SERIOUSLY bad decisions. It was first off a tax increase. Then a bond rate increase. This had the effect of removing billlllllllions of dollars out of the market. What do you think most busnesses reaction to that was? You just saw it for the past 3 years. Taxs have now come back down and bond rates as well. This will not change the market overnight. It will take YEARS to recover. Think about this just 2 months ago bond rates were at 3.5 percent. This is the lowest its been in about 50 years. People were buying durable goods on loan. Busness's were starting to bo

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by randyest · 2003-09-26 17:39 · Score: 1

This should (1) not have been posted as AC, since it will fall below most readers' radar and (2) be modded up.

Thank you for your consideration.

--
everything in moderation

MOD PARENT DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 17:51 · Score: 0

You're being trolled!

I'm sick and tired of governement complaining they by edanshekar · 2003-09-26 19:53 · Score: 1

don't get enough. The truth of the matter is this: goverment is *supposed* to be enpaneled to take the true issues of the people and rectify them. I do not see how paying for people as a whole, out of the taxes on the many result in a fair and balanced system. I pay taxes, on everything but internet purchases. I pay them on my car ($3000), my daily purchases in county (6%), my house (more then I care to think), and even my income. I pay these things and recieve nothing back from the state I live in except for additional bills/law that want me to pay for more things. The honest truth is this...I think I pay for enough. I pay for someone else's kid to go to school when I never went to public schools. I pay for welfare, and congressmen who don't represent me in true fashion (I'm gay...this state hates me for it moreso then they inact legislation to help me). The point is this: I pay enough. I pay enough for two people. And I pay it because I must. Because I'm told to, and because that's the way it is. But adding more to it, adding to the internet because the state isn't getting enough of my mother. That's BS. Cut back on the uselessness before you add more to what I have to pay.

Try using a GST or VAT by Quizo69 · 2003-09-26 21:36 · Score: 1

Here in Australia (and lots of other countries) we use a Good and Services Tax, set at 10%. It means that goods bought in Australia automatically have 10% added in the price to be collected as tax from the merchant. The price is always listed at the GST inclusive price (mandated by law) so there is no confusion or dodgy dealings where merchants advertise one price but then hit you with GST when you go to pay. The GST is charged on everything except for basic food and some educational items, and people's personal income tax is reduced in tandem to even it back out. This means that those who are wealthier and buy more, pay more indirect tax as a result. The system is largely fair, and in the question to hand, would result in governments being able to reap tax from internet sales because the tax is already built into the cost of the item. The only thing that would prevent this being effective is if each state decided to implement their own rate, thus leading to searching for states with lower GST than others.

Make it a federal tax, a nice even number like 10% (easy to calculate), and divide the money back to the states in the proportions it came in.

I am not an American, so there may already be this kind of system in place. But this is the best way I see of implementing tax across the internet.

--

Visceral Psyche Films

other sources of $$$$? by iamhassi · 2003-09-26 23:42 · Score: 1

Screw internet taxes: you want quick money? Legalize pot. Stop laughing, I'm serious, think about it:
1) People sell it for $5 a joint and risk jail, so they must be making a incredible profit off the shit. Imagine if the state was taxing that?
2) Legal pot = A lot less $$$ wasted chasing potheads and 10x more $$$ chasing hard drug dealers
3) The whole illegal aspect probably makes pot "cool" to kids, encouraging them to smoke. Think about it: was drinking cooler before or after you turned 21? Don't know about you guys, but after walking into a bar a few times drinking became passe, but before 21 drinking was soooo cool. Probably drank more before 21 than after.
4) Legalizing pot would put many more farmers to work, stimulating the economy
5) They're already smoking pot, why not legalize it and at least make some $$$ off it?
6) Pot is a weed, probably one of the easiest grown cash crop in the entire world. A joint worth of weed could be grown for pennies, then sold for $5, 80% of which could be taxes and still leave the farmer tons of $$$. Imagine $4 of every $5 being taxes!
7) The market already exists, the price has already been determined, the money is there, waiting for someone to take it. Why not the state?

You don't even have to be a pothead to realize the potential taxable revenue legalizing pot would create, but everyone's afraid to even mention such a radical idea.

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone

Workable by vonFinkelstien · 2003-09-26 23:46 · Score: 1

Within the EU you pay the VAT (European for Sales Tax) of the country the seller lives in. There are no duties or tariffs within the EU. Store only need to worry about the tax their country collects.

Already working and working well in EU by vonFinkelstien · 2003-09-26 23:49 · Score: 1

The EU has had this system in place for a long time. Buy a book from Amazon.de and you pay the German VAT (European for Sales Tax). Buy from Amazon.co.uk and you pay the Queen's VAT. Buy from a Swedish store and you're screwed by a score of 25% (highest VAT in EU--and I live here, ouch!).

The system works flawlessly.

I don't understand this... by volpe · 2003-09-27 00:20 · Score: 1

Whenever I buy something online from a vendor in the same state I live in (or more accurately, have it shipped to), The web form adds the state tax for our common state. So, in my experience, it already works like mail order. Am I missing something?

And why not make this whole thing a vendor-pays-tax-to-their-own-state thing, and pass the cost transparently on to the buyer, regardless of the buyer's state? Isn't that pretty much how it is anyway with brick-and-mortar? If I drive to another state, and buy a pair of jeans, I don't get to say to the sales clerk, "No taxes please, I live in another state. I'll take care of it on my end." They tax me unconditionally based on where they are.

What everybody else does! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 00:21 · Score: 0

" What can you expect the states to do? "

Live within their revenues? Tell people "sorry, we can only send x% of your usual check this month because there's fucking recession going on, and since people are losing their jobs then maybe, just maybe, you'll have to do with less?

I wish I could force my boss to give me a raise everytime I needed more money.

Bush is doing a bad job, but! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 00:40 · Score: 0

This recession is Clinton's (as much as it is any presidents). The recession started the well before the last election.

That said, I think Bush's tax policies are awful, and his spending is worse. But this recession is not his doing.

And I'm posting this anonymously because for the first time in over 4 decades, I'm afraid of the federal government spying on its citizens and punishing those it doesn't like. That's another reason to remove Bush from office next election.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by SpaceRook · 2003-09-27 01:52 · Score: 1

Also your comment about money being 'locked' away. You have 0 concept of how this works, dont you? Money is not 'locked away'. Its LOANED out. Where do you think loans for companies, ipos, research, buildings, etc. Its not put into little stacks and stuck in some deposit box. Oh and the 'poor' are just pissing their money away squandering it on food and shelter. People that squander money were NEVER taught how to spend money. If anything giving the money to the goverment is a sure way to remove money from the economy. They make money and they remove money. ITS THEIR JOB.

Look, the gap between the rich and poor is increasing. The CEO's make a much many more times the payrate than the workers than they did in the 70's (I think in the 70's it was about 10 times, now it's about 40 times). Trickle down economics don't work.

It's the government's job to remove money? What do you think they do with the money, put it in a pile and burn it? That money goes to defense contactors and constructions crews and research grants and a million other things that improve this country.

As for the progressive income tax, the rich pay more because they GET MORE OUT OF THE SYSTEM. Their property is protected by the government. The courts settle their disputes. They live in a country that has a stable currency.

I totally agree that a lot of poor (and middle class) people don't know how to manage their finances. If it were up to me, that would be a basic course in school. The level of consumer debt in this country is frightening.

I should not have said tax cuts were "negligible." What I meant was that they are far from the best way of "stimulating" the economy. And if you're not spending money in the best way, you're wasting money.

It's not a matter of success. by SHEENmaster · 2003-09-27 09:38 · Score: 1

Just as I have no right to steal your money and give it to Homless Foo, the state has no right to steal my money and give it to Homeless Foo.

If a charitable organization decides to help Homeless Foo out, all the better. I'll even give money too said organization or Homeless Foo myself. But the state has no right to force me, or anyone else for that matter, into giving that money.

The logistics of a law should always be second to the ethics of a law.

--
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by 7759-60784-1-E · 2003-09-27 14:34 · Score: 1

The CEO's make a much many more times the payrate than the workers than they did in the 70's (I think in the 70's it was about 10 times, now it's about 40 times).

Unfortunately, it's always been much worse than you said. According to this article: "In 1980, CEOs made 42 times the pay of average factory workers. In 1990, they made 85 times as much. By 1999, CEOs made 475 times as much as workers."

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by GenSolo · 2003-09-27 16:13 · Score: 1

I'm glad you decided to agree with me after that little discussion in your journal. Uniformly-applied federal income taxes are a much better way to fund the government than sales taxes or property taxes.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by HanzoSan · 2003-09-28 21:02 · Score: 1

They were hiring Americans? Since when ? Haha saying they might stop hiring when they already stopped hiring after being rewarded with a trillion dollar tax cut has to be a joke.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

taxes by 56ksucks · 2003-09-29 12:30 · Score: 1

If anyone ever listened to Rush Limbaugh one of his opinions is, if you want to get rid of something just tax it. I know he's probably not the most popular man when it comes to slashdotters but it seems in this area most people agree. Taxing internet sales will be destructive to the industry.

-----

--

---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

Re:Sales Tax / Use Tax (BOTH are Forbidden) by TomRC · 2003-10-01 14:35 · Score: 1

Nice as it would be if you were correct, you are not. That provision doesn't mean I'm immune to local sales taxes just because I'm from out of state and intend to take my purchases home with me. I have to pay the same taxes as local residents. I'm only safe from ADDITIONAL taxes that apply just because I'm from out of state.

That provision is just to prevent anyone from erecting tax barriers to trade between states.

So long as the tax is applied to in-state as well as out-of-state buyers, I don't believe it runs afoul of that provision.

You can argue that the words seem to mean something else, but ultimately you're wrong in what it was meant to say, and in how it'll be interpreted by the courts. Sorry.

Re:Sales Tax / Use Tax (BOTH are Forbidden) by CapitalistAmerican · 2003-10-01 16:47 · Score: 1

Sigh... More word games and rhetoric. That's pathetic. That section of The Consitution is nothing less than an explicit iron-clad prohibition on imposing taxes on out-of-state buyers.

People like you remind me of this character.

You can try to contradict it all you want, but you are wrong. Your pathetic argument amounts to nothing more than "Well, it's ok if everyone gets illegally screwed just as much as everyone else." Your argument is complete nonsense. Screwing people "equally" does not nullify an explicit prohibition against screwing people.

Seriously. The only thing you can offer to support your argument is saying it doesn't mean "what it was meant to say", and then claiming that "the courts", rather than the law itself has the final say. Now, as for this "interpreting The Constitution" nonsense:

Contrary to what anti-American collectivists (known as "liberals" here in America) would have everyone believe, there is no "interpreting" The Consitution. It means precisely what it says. It does not change unless it is amended according to the legally specified process for amending it. No court, official, nor law other than a Constitutional Amendment can alter it. Period. No "if's", "and's" or "but's" about it. Arguments that it can be "interpreted" are nothing more than attempts to hoodwink citizens into doing nothing while their rights and other sections of The Constitution are violated wholesale by corrupt people in the government.

Re:Will people please stop making excuses for Bush by stuartkahler · 2003-10-01 21:16 · Score: 1

These are many 'land rich' (another poster tried to name this incorrectly) old-timers. My grandparents live on 70+ acres about an hour south of Minneapolis. 50 years ago, their land and 4 bedroom house with no electricity or running water cost them $10000. That land is assessed at 2-3 million now, and none of that is the house. They live on about $12-15k/year now between working and social security (they're long past retirement age). They could sell out the home they've lived in their whole lives and be rich, but they'd rather die than move away from their church and friends.

These are not the ferrari driving, day-trading, botox injecting, embezzeling, got-out-before-the-dotcom-bubble-burst, got-rich-quick scum that so many people think of when they think of millionaires. Not most of them, at least.

Slashdot Mirror

States Push for Net Sales Taxes

512 comments