Slashdot Mirror
New York to Implement an 'Amazon Tax'
theodp writes "NY Governor David Paterson is expected to sign a bill requiring online retailers to collect sales taxes on purchases shipped to the state, even if they have no operations or employees working there. The so-called 'Amazon tax', which applies to Internet retailers who derive sales through affiliate programs, would end what for many New Yorkers had been tax-free shopping and generate an estimated $50M in revenue this fiscal year. Experts predict that other states could follow suit with similar provisions."
Its as if millions of 45 year old women screamed in horror and were then silenced.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
It's not Constitutional.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I'm not an American, so I don't know how the system works.
My guess is a sales tax is charged (we have GST - Goods and Services Tax - here in New Zealand) on goods sold within the state. Now I presume the purpose of this consumption tax is to pay for goods and services beneficial to the residents of that state.
Hence I guess the argument lies with whether the burden of payment for this tax (and reaping the benefits of such) comes down to those producing said goods and services, or consuming them.
Anyone care to clue us non-Americans in on how this is supposed to work?
The Mothership
This sounds like some kind of serious hogwash to me. The laws applying to Internet sales should be no different than those which apply to catalog sales. If you order something out of a catalog and you have it shipped to the same state where the catalog company is, then you pay the sales tax in that state just as if you had gone to a store in that state and bought the item. But if the catalog company is in Maine and you are in Florida, then you don't pay Jack Schitt for taxes. An internet site that sells stuff is nothing more than an electronic version of a page in a catalog. Amazon is nothing more than a vast catalog of products, as are most other electronic retailing sites. So if you're in the same state where Amazon is, it makes sense that the sales tax should be added to the price, but if you are in any other state, there should be NO tax of any kind on the purchase. Amazing and incredible that every time politicians are faced with a spending problem, they just invent more taxes, instead of reducing all the unnecessary spending. Or as Mark Twain said, "Suppose you're an idiot. And suppose you're a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
Thanks, folks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.
This is an eventuality, and a needed leveling of the playing field. Why should a multi-billion dollar company get a competitive advantage over local businesses? Hate taxes all you want, but hate them fairly, not just those on your local small businesses. If e-commerce continues to grow, and is not taxed equitably with other businesses, this becomes a tax break for the big internet based merchants, and they need it the least. Consider this another play on the idea of a fair tax - one that levels the playing field for all businesses
Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torment of man. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
In a sense, I've been waiting for this to happen. Ever since nearsighted liberals defined the surveillance between a U.S. telephone party and a foreign one as "domestic spying," I've been anticipating our spend-happy state government leftists to define intrastate commerce as between their state and another. There's too much money on the table and political power to be had to ignore minor details like laws and logic.
I can't wait for all the follow-along regulations on "intrastate" commerce, like bans on pornography, deviant speech, oppression of people we don't like, etc. If we're gonna tax it, we're sure as hell gonna control it. Deviance like boingboing, foobies, voyeurweb and ebay will be eliminated as soon as some county in Ohio decides these sites violate their moral code. Since local and state taxes transcend Internet boundaries, so will prescriptions on the freedom expression.
It's not like we libertarians warned you all...
but i know in Ohio, we're supposed to report any out of state purchases that arrive in Ohio (like all the computer stuff i get from newegg) on our 1040s. i say supposed to because i haven't reported any of my purchases any year. god i hope no one from the ohio tax office is reading this...
...shopping in PA malls just over the border, and sent them notices that they had to pay NY sales tax. NY also is trying to force Seneca store owners on sovereign indian land to collect NY sales tax.
This space available.
Ohio already charges tax on internet purchases with their Sales and Use tax, expecting consumers to keep tabs of all internet and tax-free out of state purchases and then pay a lump sum of it at the end of the year.
Of course, such a useless tax is currently unenforceable. Here's hoping they don't put the pressure on the vendors like NY will.
It doesn't sound too irrational to me. States can already tax you for making purchases out of state and bringing them within state borders. If you buy a car in a state where the sales tax is only 5% and your state's sales tax is 6.5%, the state can charge you a 1.5% import tax. I know that imported liquor is subject to excess taxes in Minnesota if it surpasses a specified volume. I'd be surprised if this didn't apply to other states as well.
Yeah only if we get the same benefits you do...
You know what online retailers will do?
Simple, they will change their shipping policy to something along the lines of 'Will not ship to new york'.
I would say fine, guess what you live in NY, I don't sell to you. As in the end every online store needs to add this sort of thing in at there expense and is something that is a joke to begin with. So Hey take Newegg, anazon and a few other major ones say nope no NY, to bad, the backlash would be nough to get somthing roling in getting this joke removed as again how can NY state tell me in Michigan what to so.
Amazon should already have the software implementation that allows them to collect a tax to the authorities of the recipient's home state because the EU already requires them to do it. It sounds insane, but as a European I can't order anything from the US site of amazon.com without being charged the value-added tax of my home country. I have no idea how the EU manages to force this on foreign companies.
A DRM tax could help our government offset the cost of the infrastructure required by these "anti-theft" measures.
I thought that only the fed could levy taxes on interstate commerce.
Rhode Island gets around it by having what they call a Use Tax. Ask me if I've ever paid it. I haven't. I don't think anyone ever has.
Okay New Yorkers, it's time to talk to your governor, your state senators, and your congressmen and let them know what you want, or don't want.
Did you ask to be taxed more? No? Well, your politicians seem to be confused. Please set them straight.
Remember, they are supposed to represent you. It's not as if the government should do whatever it wants to do and you have no say in the situation. It's only that way when you keep quiet.
You should read it sometime.
Has anyone recently ordered a Lenovo laptop? I just bought a pretty sweet x61 and they charged me tax!
I live in Arizona and any time I've ordered anything online (including Amazon), I've never been charged tax.
Even with the tax, they were cheaper than everything else, but calling something "tax" when they are obviously not paying the taxman seems crappy to me.
I wonder if anyone else has seen Lenovo do this in their state?
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Peon pays little but I pay very much more total. These 'benefits' are the same for the peon as they are for me. The rich do not get richer by default, but wars help.
If you read on your taxes, you are supposed to declare your mail-order purchases. If you didn't pay a sales tax in another state, you have to pay it in your state of residence. I've always thought this silly myself, but this "Amazon tax" isn't new.
I guess this governer isn't worried about his re-election.
Amazon is based in Seattle, so Washington state residents already have to pay the roughly 8% sales tax on Amazon goods. I've always wondered if it would be ever worth it to ship expensive items to an address of a friend outside of Washington, and then just have him ship it back. This would potentially work for small items.
Since you already have to pay for goods shipped in from other states at traditional storefronts, it only makes sense to allow Amazon to be taxed.
That said, I'm generally opposed to sales taxes, as they are regressive, and think that progressive income taxation is the way to go.
Just askin'...
Since you aren't an American, I presume you don't know, interstate and intrastate commerce and taxes were actually a very big factor in the American civil war just over a hundred years ago. Although it seems like more stupid greed and politics, this issue was settled at gruesome cost a century ago, and we shouldn't even touch this topic with a ten foot pole. Ever. IMHO.
:).
To belabor the point... (sorry!)
This also relates to the state vs. federal rights which declares that federal law overrides state law, which is why you can be arrested for something that is legal in your state, but illegal at the federal level; many cultural and socio economical come to a head at this junction.
Someone please correct me if I've got my history wrong... I'd rather be made a fool here than on a date with a history major
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
As it should. I, as an internet merchant, ship my products "FOB here", which means that from the moment the article is delivered to the carrier, it belongs to the buyer. The transaction legally happened here, not in New York. If New York can get away with an import tax, fine... not my problem.
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
We have a "destination tax" in Kansas. Anything we buy we're supposed to pay tax on, regardless of where it comes from. We're supposed to pay tax on online purchases when we do our taxes every year. If you make a mail order purchase from a company that has no existence in Kansas and is aware of Kansas destination tax, they will charge you Kansas sales tax based on your location, not theirs.
Now, does anyone actually volunteer to pay those taxes? That's a different story...
Who think the Commerce Clause gives Congress exclusive and complete control over interstate commerce, read up on the Dormant Commerce Clause. Or if that's too dense, go to the Wikipedia article, although that's more confusing.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Collecting sales tax is horribly complicated. It's not just a simple percentage for each state. There have been some attempts to simplify it, but they have so far failed (to come up with something basically simple). Even if they did simplify things enough to have a known percentage for each state or zip code of delivery, what about electronic delivery (stuff you pay for then get to download)? I once suggested states be required to standardize tax rates based on zip code (or just one percentage for the whole state). But some internet sales won't have a zip code of delivery.
I suggest a major change to the way the taxes are collected. Instead of the retailers collecting it, have the credit/debit cards and other payment handlers like PayPal collect it. That way there would not be a million retailers for all the states to have to deal with. And these payment handlers know where most of their account holders live (for those cases where the retailer doesn't need to know). The retailers would simply include as part of the charge to the payment handler, a breakdown of the amount into the various standardized classes of product and service categories that might have different tax rates.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Your argument holds no water at all. Sales transactions have been conducted remotely via the mails since before the founding of our country.
Someone needs to tell the government to fuck off and stop double, triple and quadruple dipping into the Taxpayers pockets.
1) INCOME TAX (Both Personal and Corporate)
2) SALES TAX
3) $$$ GAS TAX $$$
4) Assorted 'Fees', 'Service Charges' and 'Fines'.
If they were doing their job right they'd only need to tax income only tax sales. Clearly the system is busted because its got its hand out to you on payday, grocery day, garbage/recycling day, even the day you die (Estate Taxes) etc... It is precisely because rich people are utilizing loopholes to avoid taxation like purchasing land and such which gives tax breaks and/or functions as an efficient tax shelter, swiss bank accounts, investments, etc...
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Unreal.
I can only see them maneuvering this to a destination where you would be paying double taxes. At the point of sale and at the point of purchase. Offcourse, at that point both parties will also have indirectly paid income tax over it.
I fully expected this to eventually come about. There's a huge chunk of commerce in the US done through the Internet which drains a lot of possible Tax Revenue from the states when before people would just go to the local electronics store.
I don't believe it's right to tax us this way however, nor do I think it's truly enforceable at this time since tax rates in various states are so complicated and if this actually passes it will be a big precedent for other states and local governments the follow suit, further complicating the situation.
It will be interesting to watch this play out. Sadly, the American people are gonna have to start paying taxes from somewhere. We have a huge debt and a lot of immediate things the government simply needs to take care of.
Wonder Woman is going to be pissed off by this.
Worst. Signature. Ever.
Isn't a corporation governed by the laws of the state within which it is incorporated? For example, if my business is incorporated in Delaware (heh, no sales tax at all, as far as I recall), then how could New York require me to do anything? All they could do is limit my ability to import goods to that state. Even then, if the customer is the one ordering the item, aren't they the ones calling for the item to be shipped, and therefore the ones who are doing the importing? If the customer is importing the goods, they are the ones required to pay the import taxes. However, FedEx and UPS are corporations which themselves are operating on a national level. Since it is not against federal law to import goods, I doubt there'd be much of anybody tracking down the "unreported" imports. Then again, I'm a computer scientist, not a lawyer, so I may be wrong on all of this.
The problem is the US (as a federal system, vs the EU's confederacy) has taxing jurisdictions that don't correspond to postal codes.
The taxing jurisdictions are frequently at the state level (that is easy), but many are at the town/city/group of towns level.
Postal codes are assigned (with no thought to tax codes) by the national postal authorities and do not correspond to the tax jurisdictions.
So, AMZN would have to map addresses to tax jurisdictions (possibly via GPS) without using the shipping information.
It looks like NYers are rattled by this perspective.
In any of the 27 European Union (EU) member states it is instead very simple.
Mail order/internet order?
The firm shipping will charge VAT (Value Added Tax) at the rate of the destination country (Member states send each other the amounts they have collected on behalf of the other member states).
Should you instead go to another EU country and buy something there (though not a car, because it must be licensed in your country of residence), then you will pay at the VAT rate of the country where you are making your personal purchase, and have no more obligation to do anything at all in your own country.
No sweat and no need for painkillers...
The Force actually is with me.
Thanks to the housing bubble bursting, states are facing severe budget problems. Expect to see all sorts of ways to tax come out of the woodwork.
I was going to suggest this. Some enterprising opportunist could open a book store just over the state line to avoid the sales tax.
They could call it Borders.
If you live close enough to make it economical, get a mailbox out of state.
Liberty in your lifetime
If that is the case then the constitution should be changed, or amended, using the legal process to do so. The ability to change the constitution was put in precisely for this reason. Government does not get to skip due process simply because it is convenient.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
I'm confused: All this outrage, but not one "Yeah, so?"
I've lived in both Virginia and Massachusetts - certainly opposite states with respect to economic policy. At the dawn of the Internet, buying things online was a great way to avoid sales tax. But over the years, more and more companies had to collect sales tax from me; I can't remember the last time I bought something online and paid no tax.
I thought I remembered this exact controversy happening, nationwide, a few years back; online retailers were going to have to collect the use tax on behalf of the consumer, in an amount equivalent to the sales tax the consumer would have paid. So I figured that's what has happened.
But no? Is it just that most of these companies have a "substantial presence" in both VA and MA, so I ended up being taxed?
As a european this just sounds like the usual Americal judicial logic: laws that demand things from entities over whom the laws has no jurisdiction.
Consider MPAA vs. The Pirate Bay:
MPAA: You have violated paragraphs A, B and C of the third amendment of the fifth subsection of the ACMD! Cease and desist!
TPB: This is not America you schmucks, we don't care.
MPAA: But, but... we are Americans!
TPB: Up yours.
Just because you have a law doesn't mean people and companies in other countries (or states in this case) have to follow them.
However, I can see that this is slighly more complicated since there might be federal laws that also play a role here.
So, it looks like it will be headed for a showdown in the courts, but it looks like the spirit of the "mail order" court ruling is retained...
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
What about not taxing rebates?
I buy a lot of things here in Michigan that come with, say, a $30 rebate. Yet, the state doesn't give me a tax rebate on that. In my estimation, I've paid sales tax on a couple hundred dollars of rebates.
Multiply $20 by 5M people and that's plenty of revenue for the state that they shouldn't be getting.
What's with this "Experts predict that other states could follow suit with similar provisions" bit? Only if said experts are idiots. Everyone already knows that most states have use taxes already. New York must be one of the last states which doesn't.
> ...and generate an estimated $50M in revenue this fiscal year.
I think you meant "...and steal an estimated $50M from its residents this year".
"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." - Albert Camus
Obviously, this was going to happen sooner or later as online selling matured. I believe that many smaller, independent operations will run afoul of this until the change becomes common knowledge. Something all of those little online retailers will need is a website where they can go to check the current sales tax for the state they are shipping to (if their online ordering system does not calculate it automatically).
Andrew Borntreger
Champion of cinematic disasters
Yes, yes. We have had such an idea considered/discussed here in Brazil since a Professor wrote an article at a major newspaper about it. His name is Marcos Cintra, here is his web site (in portuguese): http://www.marcoscintra.org/iut/index.asp
Anyway, his proposition was: substitute all taxes for one single tax, to be charged as a small percentage of all electronic financial transactions. He calculated how small the percentage would be, and defended it on the grounds of being easy to collect, harder to evade, and applied over a much wider collection base.
What came out of it? The government implemented it, called "CPMF", acronym for Provisory Contribution over Financial Movements. It was 0,38% of all money transfers (credit, debit, wire transfers, anything) between two different persons, between a person and a company, or between two different companies. Even when transferring money to an investment fund (a different legal entity) this would be charged. It was promptly implemented by the banks and it worked (as expected) flawlessly, generating billions in tax revenues to the government.
The only catch is: being the government as it is, they implemented that idea but did not bring down the others (!). So the government broke the key premise of simplifying the taxes, and instead used this collection method to *add* taxes.
CPMF, the "provisory" (temporary) contribution lasted for ten years, but came down a few months ago (a major defeat to the government, a victory to the opposition).
I don't know if you can trust *your* government not to get greedy, and hold on to the old taxes as it brings on the new. But I know what happened down here.
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
Screw that worthless cocksucker Paterson. Useless piece of shit. I hope someone assassinates him.
And I've been screaming that it's unfair. If you can't pass sane laws then at least everyone should suffer equally.
The terms "import" and "export" clearly refer to imports and exports into the state, regardless of where from. Court precedents are not always Constitutionally correct -- to assume otherwise is naive and logically inconsistent (as they often contradict other court cases). At the time the Constitution was ratified, the states clearly would have considered imports into the state to be imports. The states are each sovereign and independent states -- at the time of the signing of the Constitution this was obvious and commonly understand -- see, for example, the Treaty of Paris 1883. For further proof, see Article I Section 9, clause 4: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Thus the word "export" (and hence) "import" do apply to the states (even though this prohibition in particular is on Congress).
It's called "Use Tax", and most of the 50 states have had it for years.
if the purpose is to protect the state's own retail industry over that of other states, then it violates the commerce clause.
taxing goods that were neither produced or sold in the state seems suspicious because the state did not use any of its resources to make these out of state products happen. normally land, business licenses, etc are things a state contributes to enable a business to exist. take that away and I wonder how a state can expect to get a foot in the door to justify taxation.
a state could charge tax on the the shipping charges. because it is a service with a presence in every state. (poor UPS!)
New York already has an income tax. Or are they so used to taxing consumers twice?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I wonder how anything ever gets done in the US with this ridiculous attitude towards taxes. You are the lowest taxed country in the world (well, the western world anyway) and yet you continually bitch and moan about something like a sales tax on amazon sales, when you already have state sales taxes when buying brick and mortar goods. Is that fair to those who also pay property taxes in the state? No, it's bullshit. Shut up and pay your sales tax on yoru amazon tax, or work to have the sales tax repealed, and continue with the Republican agenda to starve all levels of government of the money they need to function. Health care, fsck that, we don't need no sticking health care (until you loose your jobs and end up without insurance and find that you have cancer, then you're fscked). And this after the repugs bail out the banking industry which is currently responsible for what looks like a world wide recession. you're all being fscked over by your governments who claim they work for you, but they only work for big business to line each othres pockets with filthy lucre while you get screwed over and over and over. It really is pretty comical to watch this happen again and again, from the outside.
There's also the huge problem with this of smaller online retailers, of which I use many. They'll have huge hurdles to jump to try to pay taxes for random shopper in state XYZ who really just wants his product.
Other states would lower their sales taxes to compete. Plus, states collect a certain amount of taxes one way or another, whether sales taxes, property taxes or high income taxes.
And New Hampshire doesn't have the population or infrastructure to support big companies.
Infuriate left and right
I can't wait for the first person to be double-taxed because of this and sue over it.
Sure, very few people do bother to declare their online or catalog purchases, but surely there are at least a few people out there who do, even if the numbers are quite small.
If they get taxed at the point of purchase because of this, then get taxed again when they declare it (let's face it, the government isn't organized enough to change quite that quickly), I can foresee a very heavy-handed slap from the lawyers.
Calling a sword by a pretty name is no more than adding perfume to poison.
NE, NY states too small for this BS. Every other place in the world that is this physical size has an economic treaty with their neighboring small states to avoid tariffs like this.
Actually the Boston-to-WashingtonDC assemblage of little states into a single city-single economic zone has already happened. Its economic integration is overseen the US federal government. If the feds accept this new individual purchase tax on out-of-state goods enacted by a single one of this little pissant states, then they will have to do so for all the little pissant but legally-independent states that make up the Boston-Washington North American economic zone.
The overseers or guiders of the economic and legal framework that oversees this contradiction between mini-states and a single economic zone may frown on this development. They will take the case to US Supreme Court. In past cases like this, the Supremes voted against sales taxes on mail order for private individuals. I don't know the specific case but if they had voted to allow it then we would be paying it on all net purchases. This case would probably lose also if it made it that far.
I think that the New Yorkers are beginning to become aware that they chosen as their new leader a blind man who doesn't really like rich white people. The Albany pols are realizing that they need more money to keep up their little scams. This looks like an easy source.
I'm always amused at all the former powerhouse, but now presumptuous little legal entities using historical boundaries to magnify their status as states. Yes,they are old historical boundaries. But there are six separate states between the Northern Boston suburbs and the New Jersey suburbs of New York City. A distance of about 250 miles by 100 miles. There is one state for three of these economic areas on the west coast: California having the Bay Area, LA and the Valley suburbs, and San Diego-Tijuana zones.
Imagine every little municipality in each of these California zone going up to Ahh-nold and telling him that they are going to double the sales tax on everything that comes into their village and they aren't going to give any of to him.
Big Mistake!
Why all these little pissant states in the North East think that they can just do this and get away with it confounds us Westerners in the NAFTA zone. If I recall, you can cross from the eastern to the western edge of Rhode Island (one of these little NE pissant states) in an afternoon: on a bicycle.
the playing field is level for all businesses-
the business chose its location!
they had the same opportunity to locate where the multi-billion dollar company did
(paraphrasing from a vorkosigan novel)
imagine 50 little islands of economic evolution-
it makes a great system of checks and balances between citizens, government, and businesses
the corporations, and businesses can choose where they do business,
based on the market and regulations in effect where they set up shop
(yes, even the local mom & pops can decide where to sign a lease)
if an enlightened state greases their tax structure to be more appealing to a corporation,
then the corporation will register there, build offices there, grow there, and the government base for revenue will grow
if a stodgy state taxes everything under the sun- business will leave, citizens will leave, and the governement will wither
Do you know how much Philadelphia & NY city wage tax sucks? terms of residence and state of residence variations?
I like it- as long as the field for government to tax is indepenedent of other states,
they have to compete with other states or lose out either in citizenry or businesses
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
We have several taxes like this. They fall into two categories. It's either a "where's-the-money-and-how-do-we-get-some" tax or simply the all-inclusive "we're-the-government-and-we-can-do-whatever-the-fuck-we-want" tax. This would be the former.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Yes, this is exactly what the US economy needs right now, more regressive taxation.. that should put us back on track.. on no wait.. seriously there should be a class in basic economics that politicians need to pass before they are allowed to have any control of the tax system.
The USA is the European Union. The USA is the first and only successful long-term attempt of the European peoples to create an economic and political union. The fact that the people forming the union were all thrown of Europe, and that there were significant numbers of non-European people in their union, doesn't change the essential nature of the first successful European Union. In fact the USA was of minor importance in world affairs until all the little European countries decided to commit mass suicide in the years 1914 to 1945.
Whether the survivors and new generations of Europeans can sustain this new European Union remains to be seen.
Congratulations, asshole. You've just successfully signed into law the bill that will ensure we leave your smoldering hellhole of a state alone. Have a good day, and do not expect to get any money from us, as we are ceasing operations in New York State. Undersigned, E-Bay Amazon TigerDirect et al
If the book store straddled the state line you could sell to both states!
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Remember when Governor Cuomo sent police to New Jersey mall parking lots to scout for New York license plates that were then cross-referenced with tax records?
New York already requires, "under penalty of pain of perjury," reporting of use tax with annual individual filings. In fact, big ticket items (>$1000) must be itemized.
Dear Gov Patterson, I bought a slice of pizza and a coke in the food court. Here's your 43 cents sales tax.
While we don't want to collect tax from everyone because we will lose sales, that's not the big problem. We are a small internet retailer (www.buysomebooks.com) and it is already a costly time consuming process to keep up with just two states we need to collect sales tax for. Every state has different amounts, different filing periods, different deadlines, different forms, different rules, and annual filing fees.
On the surface, people position it as "helping out the local guy", but in reality, if the local guy sells online through their website or ebay, this could put him out of business.
Some other things people forget is that the interstate Internet retailer is someone else's 'local business'. I know we are currently less United and more States, but not caring about 'other local' business is not good. We need a little more 'team' spirit right now. It's unfortunate if this type of thing is defining the new American way.
The Bush family is from OH (I admit sadly as an Ohioan), and later moved to CT.
And, uh, I don't know where you're getting your political spectrum from, because US politics are some of the most right wing and authoritarian in the industrialized world. If anything mainstream Democrats are Republican Lite, not the other way around.
And the Bush's were very right wing Republican industrialists. They made their money in banking, steel, and railroads. Prescott Bush *hated* FDR. And the only welfare George Bush Sr and Jr are interested in is corporate welfare.
There are two steps to solve this issue. First have all retailers collect taxes for ALL sales as if they were made in their store. Next, have all prices INCLUDE this tax. This is what the governments do NOT want. It will drive companies to areas with better (lower) tax rates. The government is always afraid of competition, and when it does happen it's the public that will benefit.
If NY, or more states implement this, it could be very difficult and expensive for a small internet retailer to collect the tax and file it in the correct state.
If NY implements this, I'll collect the tax, but I won't it pay it to NY! Go ahead and try coming after me. I'm hoping it won't be worth their time.
If they want to tax they should keep it simple and tax based on the location of the seller, not the buyer.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
All of these sales taxes are going to kill the online sales industry. If you are in NY and were to buy from a CA based online store, you would get taxed the ridiculous CA sales tax percentage + the soon to be ridiculous NY sales tax.
THEN add in the cost of delivery.
Fuck that...
It makes buying online not worth it. However most local retail stores have a very small selection of in store goods. Usually you have to go online to find something.
I hope our blind governor is read this part of the bill before he signs this stupid bill. That or i hope he just signs the desk and misses the paper all together.
If we had our whore fucking super god eliot spitzer as gov... he would not sign this. Perhaps thats why he was ratted out.
A clause that might limit the states is in Article I Section 10, which places limits on the actions of the States.
It's best to understand the document before basing arguments upon it.
Support SETI@home
You're missing the key point. Reread the summary, especially the part that says "... which applies to Internet retailers who derive sales through affiliate programs."
Obviously, they're proceeding on the grounds that since Amazon must have affiliates that live in New York, Amazon has a "physical presence" in New York, which in turn allows them to collect sales tax. So the question becomes, is having an "agent" in that state the same as having employees or a b&m store?
This one may have to work it's way up to the Supreme Court.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Whenever a Democrat gets a chance, he'll impose yet another tax. Democrats rob the middle class to waste on the poor. Republicans rob the middle class and send our jobs overseas. Either way America is done for by these crappy politicians.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
In fact, this is one of the chief reasons that we have the Constitution instead of the Articles of Confederation.
Say the tax was a flat 20%. My partner and I make about $250,000 annually. Our expenditures on items that are sales-taxable is about $50,000 annually. We would pay $10,000 in taxes - or 4%. When I was in residency, I made $45,000 annually and spent about $20,000 on sales-taxable items. I would have paid $4,000 in taxes - or 8.9%.
As it stands, my tax burden as a percentage of my income is far less now. I pay about 27% now and paid about 35% in residency. (Just by virtue of the fact that Social Security tax stops at $75,000.) However a sales tax only system would make it far more regressive. Poor people pay a far greater portion of their income in sales-taxable items than the wealthy, so unless you are going to tax hiring a lawn guy, tipping a waiter, investing in stocks, paying for boutique health care, and sending junior to Harvard, we have a moral disaster of monumental proportions on our hands.
I recall the British East India Company having some difficulties collecting that tax at one point. . . ;-)
it is time for Iowans to re-read their -real- State motto, and cast the urban demonrats out of office. And DON'T give in to losing representation and self-governance through the county reorganization proposal!
Look at it from the buyer's point of view. If they buy at a local store they end up paying sales tax. But if they buy it online they may not pay sales tax but they'll have to pay for shipping. Sometimes the shipping charge is more than the sales tax would have been, sometimes it's the other way around. Still, the buyer has the choice of vendors and none has a significant pricing advantage.
If NY finds a way to make this proposed tax legal and workable it'll change the balance to where online businesses are disadvantaged. If the purchase includes sales tax either way but also includes a shipping charge if purchased online - this would pretty much kill online businesses. Nobody would pay more and wait for delivery if they didn't need to.
And of course there's some legal problems with the whole idea - New York may decide to require an online business located in California to collect and forward New York sales tax, but that business in California is not subject to New York laws. This is what the Commerce Clause is all about; to federally regulate interstate transactions because of non-overlapping state jurisdictions. I'm sure that many quasi-legal hairs will be split during the spirited discussions on this topic but the whole Amazon tax idea rests upon a pretty important concept: are citizens of other states under the jurisdiction of New York courts? Not according to the Constitution...
So there we already have a precedent of a US citizen being detained without cause, on US soil.
... so really, when it boils down to it, American military rules of engagement are most likely a step up in civil rights for most arabs.
Getting concerned yet? You should be.
I won't even bother to point out that you'd have to be a selfish bastard, as well as ignorant to think only American's have the right to Habeas Corpus.
Ok. Check this out. The USA has a -long- tradition of temporary suspensions of some civil liberties during war time. Last time I checked, the USA is in a war.
As much as the left wing bashes Bush for, honestly, going after Padilla, whose just a stupid muslim gangsta anyway, they've neglected that Lincoln not only suspended Habeus Corpus in the civil war in general, but he flat out executed a shitpot of confederate spies - no trial. Just whacked them. Then, in World War II, you had Roosevelt go and throw all the Japs into camps. What was their crime? And this guy has his head stamped on every US dime.
After the war is over, and peace breaks out, then the USA's civil liberties go back.
I have no problem saying that terrorists or Iraq or Afghan insurgents do not get Habeus Corpus. It's a battlefield, and if a US soldier -thinks- they might get shot at by you, then they should shoot you first. Sorry, its a war. War sucks. But, I don't see any Arab organization actually arguing in favor of any civil rights for anybody.
This is my sig.
I really don't understand this idea in the US of every state doing everything individually in their own little wa
It's really best to think of the US Constitution as a treaty between the states that allows for the creation of a strong federal government but with limited powers. Thus, the commerce clause argument that both left and right wingers always have.
The only reason that the USA wound up with a strong federal government was because the previous "federal" government, the Articles of Confederation, was an abject failure and almost doomed the USA to perpetual inter-state bickering. The US Constitution changed all that, and eventually, the EU will most likely evolved into something like it.
This is my sig.
It's about time that this loophole gets plugged. It is really unfair to local retail stores.
note to self -- pick up a franchise or two of these... right in PA along the NY state line...
I agree. New York is one of those states where each County has a different tax rate, and they seem to change every five years or so. I can't imagine how a non-New York retailer is going to pay their New York sales tax bill. If five or six other states start doing this, it will be very difficult for small businisses to sell on the Internet.
I live in NYC.
What an assenine bill. I didn't even know this thing existed...sneaky bastards..I wonder if this is a leftover from Spitzer's todo list.
Hell, if this passes I will just have to buy internet stuff from my NJ work location, have it shipped to my Brother-In-Law's house in Piscataway, NJ, and pick it up on my way home from work after it's delivered.
I know that most don't have this option, but it's a workaround I'd be able to live with, given that I'm in NJ 6 days each week....
Huh?
You've somehow managed to completely overlook this bit from you own quote:
The "FairTax" group is essentially proposing that the zero-point for their sales tax be placed at the poverty income level. Their "prebate" cancels out the sales taxes up to the estimated expenses for a poverty-level household. For yearly taxable expenses below the poverty line there is a small net handout; above the poverty line the effective sales tax rate asymptotically approaches the per-transaction rate. Thus the "poor people" (presumably poverty-level and below) pay no federal taxes at all under this system.
This comment should not be taken as an endorsement of the "FairTax" system.
The previous disclaimer should not be taken as an endorsement of the status quo.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Seriously. An accountant told a friend of mine to do that, otherwise NY State would claim they still had an established residency in the State, and claim taxes. I sold at a market in Manhattan for many years and found the NY Tax bureau to be the absolute worst bloodsuckers I have ever in my life dealt with. I sold on a show circuit spanning 6 states and also dealt with 5 other State tax bureaus, and never had problems with any of the others. 3 out of 4 quarters NY claimed I lied to them and BILLED me for double. Then I'd have to go through the malarkey of making copies, and justifying my numbers.
This is just the tip of the iceberg for NY State. I'm sure they've got a lot more of this stuff up their sleeve. Oh, and don't die without a will in NY State. Look it up. It's horrifying.
4.4% is still significantly higher than 2.9%. Making something less unfair doesn't make it fair. Making a regressive tax marginally less regressive doesn't make it progressive.
Or fair.
And the FairTax group is like Focus on the Family or Concerned Women for America. Calling your organization the 'Basket of Puppies and Kittens Association' doesn't mean that you poop rainbows if your agenda is evil.
Where would you draw the line? The term is completely subjective; to someone living under an oppressive dictatorship a penniless vagrant in the U.S. may be "rich", and yet the average citizen might reasonably consider that same vagrant "poor". The FPL is at least a defined term, although there is room for debate over the meaning of "necessities."
I already said that I don't completely agree with the "FairTax" proposal. I also don't agree with the concept of so-called "progressive" taxation. You rightly object to implications of the "FairTax" name; the same applies to the whole "regressive"/"progressive" naming scheme. There's nothing inherently good about transferring money from high-income to low-income groups -- unless, of course, one happens to be in the low-income group oneself.
If the point is fairness, as you seem to be implying, then IMHO a "regressive" tax scale would be better. I think one could argue for the rich being less of a burden on the government, and thus for a decreasing absolute tax scale, but I'd settle for somewhere between a flat absolute tax and a constant percentage of income. This is assuming total spending equal to total tax revenues, with both tending toward zero.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Only suckers (or principled individuals) paid taxes on their computer equipment in the last 10 years.
Even if you order a physical item from out of state, say on the net, you're still paying taxes. Say you order a computer from Newegg and they ship it FedEx. FedEx still has to pay the state fuel tax. FedEx pays the tax then includes it in the cost of shipping. FedEx also has to pay property tax as a part of doing business.
Of course, this might all be a moot point since rising fuel costs are going to close the gap between Shipping Costs (the alternative tax) and local Sales Tax.
The local store has to pay those rising fuel costs too, and so does the shopper. This is something I think about, as I'm on disability and don't work I have to watch my expenses and with rising fuel costs I'll be driving less than I already do.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The Constitution is also not the "Alpha and Omega" of morality and ethics. The inequalities it had for non-whites and female citizens were corrected eventually
The original "Declaration Of Independence" though did have equality in it. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the DOI he wrote that Blacks and women had the same rights and slavery should be abolished. However others had to approve it so those parts were removed from the final version.
I can hear it now, somebody's saying TJ was a slave owner and therefore couldn't believe in abolishing slavery. Well every slave he owned he inherited from his father or his father-in-law. He didn't buy any slaves himself but he did free some, and wanted to free all of them but he was frequently in financial trouble and thought he couldn't afford to.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Anyone want to start a "purchase-by-proxy" service? Simply put, such a service would involve payment up front to temporarily "hire" a third party to make a purchase on your behalf, then turn around and re-ship the unopened box from their location into your state. Yakuza-operated pachinko bars in Japan have been using similar methods for years as a loophole to gambling laws by allowing customers to leave the bar with a particular non-cash prize (such as a stuffed animal) then go to another near-by location owned by the same group to then "sell" the prize in exchange for cash.
Everyone knows it happens, and yet no one interferes.
8==8 Bones 8==8
The only two high-profile Guantanamo-related cases to get to the Supreme Court, for example, have both gone against the government---in 2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld held that detainees have a right to challenge their detention judicially, and in 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld held that the military commission trials Bush had initiated were illegal.
More recently, there doesn't seem to be much serious belief that the courts would, for example, side with the administration on the issue of illegal wiretapping by AT&T and others. The bigger threat there is that Congress will grant them immunity.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
fuck all those old-money californians not paying property taxes; they're costing a lot more than I am
The only reason that the USA wound up with a strong federal government was because the previous "federal" government, the Articles of Confederation,
Actually the reason the federal government got so strong was because of the Civil War. Prior to it states had more power and the federal government had less. Ultimately that's what the civil war was about, it wasn't about slavery.
FalconShould there be a Law?
if the catalog company is in Maine and you are in Florida, then you don't pay Jack Schitt for taxes
Oh but if you live in Florida, I used to, you may be legally required to pay a use tax. Florida has no income tax so there's a special form that's supposed to be filled out. Other states have a line on their income tax forms where people are supposed to list what they bought from out of state.
FalconShould there be a Law?
We can't even agree on most of the amendments, certain sentences are twisted and abused, the entire constitution of the US is wrapped up in a semantic nightmare wherein we try to interpret what we -want- to interpret out of a two hundred year old document.
The only reason the amendments, and Constitution, have been twisted around is so that those who do the twisting get to say what it means. Take for instance the 2nd, because it mentions militias anti-guns activists say the right to bare arms is not a person right only a collective right. However if you read the writing of the Founding Fathers that it is in fact a personal right, the Founding Fathers feared government and wanted people to have the means of overthrowing the government. Thomas Jefferson said it quite succulently when he wrote:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
It wasn't long ago that people didn't directly vote in their Representatives and Senators.
The citizens voted for the Representatives it was the Senators the state legislators chose, see:
Section 2 - The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States
And:
Section 3 - The Senate
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
That's a pretty big change don't you think?
And changed via the 17th Amendment.
The fact that the constitution sets out so little on the requirements for election?
The only requirement I see that could be added was a test on the Constitution, which I fear most politicians would lose. Are you suggesting only a certain class of people should be representatives and senators, an aristocracy? The Constitution specifically bans an aristocracy.
Should there be a Law?
NY also is trying to force Seneca store owners on sovereign indian land to collect NY sales tax.
Yea, I read about how NY tried to get the tribes to collect the tobacco taxes back in the 1990s.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Under the FT scheme there would be far more taxable items / services. The $$$ (UN-income-taxed) you then spend, (on services, nail jobs, cars, whatever) would be now taxed. So the more $ you spend, the more $ you'd contribute to the cause ... (Not to say that we could not cut down on the $$$ that the Fed spends/wastes...)
You may be "rich", but what good are those $$$ if you cannot convert them into real world goods/services?
----------
I'd buy That (sig) for a Dollar...
In our country, facts are facts and words cannot be redefined nor can documents be re-written arbitrarily by courts. If you don't like that, go somewhere else -- this is not your country. The courts are either correct or they are not -- that is a logical necessity -- "correct" is not defined simply as "had the last word" or "not proven incorrect yet" or "not yet contradicted since speaking". Those are your definitions of "correct" and they are, frankly, bullshit, as is the entire system of relativism that you blindly follow. To summarize, A is A. Truth is truth. Regardless of interpretation. Also, the charge that the Constitution is not "equipped" to deal with the internet and modern shipping is ridiculous. The fact is that the Constitution does deal with such issues by specifically leaving them out of the purview of the state governments. We the people deal with the internet and shipping just fine, by utilizing them freely. The claim that because we have technology that did not exist 220 years ago, the Constitution is no longer valid, is, to say the least, preposterous.
I live in Idaho and I already have to pay sale tax on any Amazon purchases. The way this works is I keep track of my internet purchases, and then at the end of the year I add the up the amount and add 6% of the amount of total purchases to my Idaho 'income' tax. It's a pain and usually takes more time than the rest of my income tax (especially when Idaho does something annoying like change the amount of sales tax in the middle of the year). http://tax.idaho.gov/answers_Sales_tax.htm#11
For those who have already been paying use tax--it is required by law in many states--it will be really convenient to have it collected by the seller. It is a big nuisance to have to write down every untaxed online household purchase in a notebook, then add them all up annually, fill out a use tax form, and write check.
What we really need is a federal sales tax on internet sales delivered to addresses in the US. One that prohibits states from taxing these sales. Otherwise we will have every state passing different tax laws with different rules making it a bookkeeping and reporting nightmare.
What I propose is a federal sales tax on internet commerce (with reciprocal rules for other countries that pass compatible laws.
a 5% tax that is distributed as follows:
2% goes to the federal goveernment.
2% to the state/province with the only reporting done by zip code/postal code and city
The remaining 1% is split and goes to the following purposes as needed:
part goes to FEMA/disaster relief fund so funds are already on hand, no need to wait for congress to authorize funds to help with a disaster (or maybe something like FEMA). This would be used to reimburse the DOD for disaster relief missions, emergency food and supplies, etc.
part goes to setting up public internet exchange points and transit capacity between these points.
part goes to internet R&D and deployment of new technology (like ipv6).
part goes to basic R&D grants/NSF.
Unless the mall is visible from the NY side of the state line, they were out of their jurisdiction.
:) while out of his juridiction -- that last part was what interested his boss, and got him the boot.
I once got a cop fired for harrassing someone (myself
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Where would you draw the line? The term is completely subjective; to someone living under an oppressive dictatorship a penniless vagrant in the U.S. may be "rich", and yet the average citizen might reasonably consider that same vagrant "poor". The FPL is at least a defined term, although there is room for debate over the meaning of "necessities."
Well, let's see. I would call food, clothing, shelter, and health care necessities. The cost of those for Americans far outstrips the federal poverty level regardless of how thrifty you are. Hell, just the cost of purchasing health insurance alone eats up well over half (and that doesn't count copays etc.) Unless you think that health care, food, and a roof over one's head are luxury items?
I also don't agree with the concept of so-called "progressive" taxation. You rightly object to implications of the "FairTax" name; the same applies to the whole "regressive"/"progressive" naming scheme. There's nothing inherently good about transferring money from high-income to low-income groups -- unless, of course, one happens to be in the low-income group oneself.
1)As income level rises, consumption as a proportion of this income falls. Progressive taxes tend to have an economic stimulating effect because they decrease the tax burden on those who plug back a higher proportion of their income back into the economy.
2)As long as your post tax income increases in proportion to productivity there is a motivation to work. For a given income goal, the higher the tax rate, the more you have to work to reach that goal. (A person making 20,000/year might have to increase his gross by 1,200 to see 1,000 in his pocket, while a person making 200,000/year would have to increase his gross by 2,000 to see 1,000 in his pocket.) So the greatest stimulus for productivity occurs in people with higher income (who are often the most skilled workers and the most valuable in society.)
3)Progressive taxation does have an effect to (marginally) redistribute wealth, but largely this is in that it maintains a middle class within a society. Those countries with the most progressive tax systems also have the largest middle classes and the lowest proportion of people living in poverty. In fact one of the effects of the last few decades where the tax system in the US has become more regressive (starting with Reagan) is that we are undergoing what is termed 'third-worldization'. The US middle class shrinks every year, the number of Americans living in poverty is rising, the real median family income is falling, and we perform in measures like infant mortality at about the level of a developing nation. When I was a resident in, I saw American born children who had true protein calorie malnutrition. While it was a good learning experience as a physician, it was eyeopening to see the kwashiorkor and marasmus I would expect to find in Ghana or Nigeria in Flatbush Brooklyn. Though its not surprising since 40% of the kids in NYC live in poverty.
4)The wealthy benefit disproportionately from maintaining the security of their property rights, maintaining a fire department, maintaining an army to defend our borders (because they would have more to lose.) Therefore a proportionally higher contribution is appropriate.
5)A progressive tax is an automatic income stabilizer in that if you lost your job and got one paying a lower rate, it would soften the blow.
However with regard to your comment about the inherent 'goodness' of alleviating the wealth disparities (to a small extent) as would be done with progressive taxation, from my perspective it would be good even though my tax burden would increase. Because I don't want to live in a society where I see a child in the ER with severe protein calorie malnutrition who will be sick for the rest of his life because he wasn't given food. I don't want to live in a place where poverty is so bad that my car gets broken into repeatedly (because as poverty rises, so does propert
Should they tax it just because they can? Is there some pressing need for the additional money? Most of us out here don't see getting more money into the government as a priority in our lives. They're just greedy, that's all it amounts to.
This is my last response as you're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.
First you assumed that I am against the 2nd amendment as a personal right, and then launched a tirade against me replete with quotation.
I did no such thing. Not once in my part about the 2nd Amendment did I say you were against it as a personal right. I dare you to point out where I did.
Then you later accused me suggesting that by mentioning requirements for election, I was attempting to justify an oligarchy, aristocracy, an elite class, and the mere suggestion that I would only want a particular class of people reeks of an insinuation of racism or sexism or something-ism that I can only say is deplorable.
Perhaps your reading comprehension is below par, but I made no such statement. Instead I asked if that's what you meant as I have no idea what other requirements you would require.
Anymore correspondence on my part would be a waste of my tyme.
FalconShould there be a Law?
As income level rises, consumption as a proportion of this income falls. Progressive taxes tend to have an economic stimulating effect because they decrease the tax burden on those who plug back a higher proportion of their income back into the economy.
Generally speaking, rich people tend not to be really stupid. Those who are don't (usually) stay rich very long.
We start by assuming the goal is to get money out of the rich, in order to save the poor people from paying an "unfair" portion of taxes. My goal would be to decrease spending, but that's a seperate issue.
So, the "ideal" situation would be that the rich spend 100% of their money, or at least enough to cut the taxes of the poor (and middle class) down to "fair" levels. This would maximize the amount of the money that goes to the government coffers.
Ok, let's consider the "worst case" scenario. As you state, consumption tends to decrease as a percentage of income as income rises, so let's assume that 0% (effectively) is spent on consumption. What happens?
Since this is the "worst" case scenario, the hypothetical rich person is monumentally stupid. He hordes all his money, and gets to face inflation.
Now, the current CPI is misleading using pre-clinton style numbers it's around 7.5%.
Still, it makes more sense to look at the worldwide buying power of the dollar.
USD vs Euro: Down almost 15% YOY.
USD vs Hungarian Floring: Down around 13% YOY.
USD vs Chinese Yuan: Down around 9% YOY
USD vs Swiss Franc: Down around 18% YOY
USD vs Japan Yen: Down around 15% YOY
So, even if we weren't facing 8%+ inflation, we'd still be losing 9-15% of the value of the dollar this year. So, even in the "worst case" scenario, the rich man is still paying considerable taxes. Sales taxes apply once, income taxes apply once. Inflation disproportionally affects those with money way more than those without, and happens every single year. In fact, those with massive amounts of debt and no currency whatsoever can end up benefiting from it, as the "real world" cost of their debt drops.
So, let's look at a more real world scenario, shall we? Rich people stay rich because they do things with their money. If you aren't seeing a return on your investments, you are losing money every day. So, what happens when money is invested? It doesn't sit there - it moves around. Money that doesn't move doesn't make a return.
What happens when money goes into the bank? Well, historically speaking, we tend to have about a 10% reserve. So, a $100,000 deposit turns into $900,000 worth of loans. These tend to go towards purchasing goods for businesses (business loans), or things like mortgages.
So, we have a $100,000 deposit that leads to $900,000 worth of loans. Say these go to construction loans. The fairtax percentage of 23% results in $207,000 worth of sales taxes paid on $100,000 worth of deposits. Where does the difference come from? Inflation, of course, resulting in even more taxes for those with money.
The money can also be loaned to individuals, for things like buying cars (sales tax is paid), or to businesses (where it can be taxed as income to employees, tax on the goods purchased with it, or tax on the goods sold derived from it). Ultimately, it all gets taxed, because it's either spent, loaned to someone who spends it, or taxed away in the form of inflation.
Currently, the mortgage market is largely dead, which would change things slightly; however, ultimately it won't matter because the federal reserve has no money.
To quote them, "By definition, nonborrowed reserves are equal to total reserves minus borrowed reserves." So, a negative nonborrowed reserve would mean that we have, in fact, loaned out more money than is in the reserve, leading to a system where we can just print up however much money we want, since we've abandoned any pretense of trying to maintain our currency. So, we just print money like it's coming out of style, and then ramp up welfare programs to help the impact of rising costs in food, energy, etc.
They're still trying. Its in court.
This space available.
Spreading the investment like you suggested makes a lot of sense rather than blindly investing in stocks.
An investor should have an investment strategy based on part on their age, someone young should invest for growth. While the risks are a little higher they still have plenty of tyme to make up for loses whereas someone nearing retirement should shift to investments producing income, which have less risk. It sometimes amazes me many people though don't understand this as I learned it in jr high and high school, in public schools. Then again I had to explain this to my sister, who's 3 years younger than I am, when she was in college majoring in accounting.
FalconShould there be a Law?
They're still trying. Its in court.
I thought the USSC already ruled New York didn't have the authority to force tribes to collect and pay the tobacco taxes. Googling it appears I was wrong.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Ultimately that's what the civil war was about, it wasn't about slavery.
Actually, it was all about slavery...
Only peripherally, the southern states ceded because they believed their states' rights were being violated.
Slavery was a topic that bedeviled the founding fathers even. Adams, Jefferson, others all admitted their deal with the devils to get through the day
Yea, when Thomas Jefferson first wrote the "Declaration of Independence" he wrote that everyone, including Blacks and women, had the same rights. However as slave owners and others who believed in slavery, and subservient women, had to sign the DOI he removed those parts.
a civil war on the issue was more or less inevitable, especially as the north began to figure out how to use machines to be more productive than the southern slave based economy.
Actually in part because of the efficiency of machinery and manufacturing slavery was doomed. Economically slavery was unsustainable, it costs less to pay willing employees a living wage than it does to keep slaves.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I wonder if it is even worthwhile trying to reason with you. Do you believe in reality? You don't seem to. (To quote you, "where are you living?!?")
... by courts", so perhaps it's that to which you're opposed. Would you like to have the court system re-writing our dictionaries and forcing us to use words with the new meanings they ascribe to them?
You may not have explicitly stated that the Constitution is invalid, but the effect of your words was to say that it is. If portions of the Constitution can be set aside completely in order to deal with "the realities" of our present time, the logical consequence is that the document is invalid. If you believe that "the realities" of our time require something like, for example, an import tax by a state, then the only way in which you can advocate such a tax is by first advocating a Constitutional amendment to allow said tax, without arguing, explicitly or implicitly, that the Constitution itself is invalid. (Or, of course, you could argue that the state secede from the union, as then it would no longer be bound by any US Constitutional restrictions; but then the Constitution would become literally invalid in that state, anyway.)
The Constitution was not intended to provide for merely "the realities of the time". It was intended to establish a government with strictly delimited powers, whose limitations were based on absolute principles. Granted, it had its weaknesses as far as that goes, but in no way can it be argued that those limitations were intended to be disregarded by future judges. Also, as mentioned already, a method of amendment was provided in the Constitution itself, in case of some significant change over time which was deemed to actually require government involvement.
Where do you get the idea that Webster changed the spellings of words, rather than using spellings which were already common in America when he made his dictionary? It's an interesting charge, and I'd like to see evidence of it if you have any, even though it is rather peripheral to our discussion.
I did not say that the meanings of words cannot change over time. I said that the words of 220 years ago cannot be arbitrarily redefined to suit our present needs, desires, or intentions. The meanings of words can change naturally over time as their use changes. For an extreme example, take the evolution of the word 'liberal' from 'liberty-oriented' to 'socialist', its current most-common sense. But while reading a word in the Constitution, any honest person will endeavor to read the word in its 18th-century meaning, even if that meaning is the opposite of the common meaning of the same word. Similarly, when a word has two or more meanings, we must read the meaning which was obviously intended in the Constitution -- thus, "the right to keep and bear arms" was not intended merely to prohibit forced amputations. If the word "speech" somehow evolves into the meaning "eating" in the course of the next 200 years, that will have no impact on the actual meaning of the phrase "freedom of speech" as found in the First Amendment. Actually my exact words were "words cannot be redefined
Even if the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution is granted, that does not mean they have the power to redefine the Constitution. An interpretation is an explanation -- putting the same meaning into different words -- not rejecting the old meaning and imposing a new one. Any "interpretation" of a 220 year-old document, then, which is not consistent with the actual meaning of that document, is not an interpretation. Further, no two contradictory interpretations over any expanse of time can both be valid, and it is an uncontestable fact that court cases have often conflicted with other court cases (a fact which you allude to yourself).
The claim that court rulings are as good as Constitutional amendments is a very dangerous view. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately made it relatively difficult
That depends on your definition of 'liberal', as this is one of the words which has received the most abuse in the past century. Originally a 'liberal' was someone interested in small government and high individual liberty; hence its similarity to the word 'liberty' itself. However, over the last century the word has been co-opted by socialists and the true (classical) liberals have, quite often, allowed this. Now most people who use the term 'liberal' don't even know the original meaning, assuming it's always meant 'socialist'. Over the past 60 years then, 'conservatives' have been far closer to (classical) liberalism than the supposedly 'liberal' Democrats, who have twisted the word to their own uses. If we're using the modern sense of the word 'liberal' as socialist or collectivist, then, the current administration is 'liberal'. It is exactly the modern 'liberals' who advocate more government power, and Bush is certainly in line with them on that. There are disagreements as to just how that power should be used, sure, but the main point is that they agree in taking the power from individuals and wielding it in the form of the government. I've come to dislike this usage of the term 'liberal', prefering the older meaning, but to be consistent, if you apply it to the modern Democrat, then you've got to also apply it to the 'neocons' Bush, McCain, et al., no less.
I was filling out the TurboTax form for my Virginia taxes last night and they asked me how much I had purchased from out of state and then used in-state. They called it a use tax, but it was the same rate as the sales tax.
So much for the Internet Tax Moratorium. It may be constitutional, as discussed above, but it is prohibited, unless I missed something.
These buttocks in Albany, are nothing more then elected thieves. It's high time for New Yorkers to wake up, and vote these 'wined, dined, and pocket lined,' crooks out of office. I'm disgusted by these tax hiking politicians and their promises to cut taxes, and then turn around and pull the rug from under us all. Maybe we should change the name from the 'Empire State', to 'The Tax State', and, 'I love New York',to 'I hate New York'!