"Someone needs to lookup anthropocentrism. Feral humans wouldn't know "human" communication either. Theoretical aliens wouldn't either. Your assumptions fail empirically and rationally."
NO, you are the one who isn't getting the point. These aren't "assumptions". These are extensive behavioral studies done on non-verbal communication between humans and others species.
Domestic dogs get it. Wolves don't. (And yes, they controlled for exposure. It appears [but is not proven] to be a genetic difference between long-domesticated breeds of dog and wolves.)
And chimpanzees get it even less. They just don't understand human non-verbal communication. Again, exposure was controlled for, so it's not a matter of just "not being familiar with our culture".
Repeat: read up about it before accusing others of "irrational assumptions". These are results from controlled empirical studies.
"Yes, in the case of mail order, but not for the reason you state (while it is economically reasonable). The transaction is deemed to take place at the location of the business because that's where the money changes hand. Your money in the mail is still yours. Only when it's _received_ does it become owned by someone else."
Citation? My law professors disagreed with you. Further, it is my understanding that once you post something in the U.S. mail, it does NOT belong to you anymore. It belongs to the addressee. Only in the case where the addressee cannot be found will it be returned.
In fact, I seem to recall some cases in which it was determined that a bill was legally paid on the date of postmark. Which means it belongs to the recipient, not the sender.
"The courts disagreed. It may looks the same in effect, but it's not the same at all from a legal point of view,"
Citation? I am curious about this precedent you refer to.
"The rest, state sovereignty, unconstitutional, blah, blah, blah, is based on this misconception."
No, the State sovereignty and Constitutional arguments are based on the Constitution. The mail-order argument has nothing to do with those. You seemed to think I started with the mail order idea and worked backward from there. Not so.
"Just as in that example, the notion that a state could tax a transaction that occured between 2 different that it didn't even have any part of is ludricrous."
Just as I wrote to someone else here: WHOOSH. You aren't getting the point.
A State has no legal authority to tax another State. There is no legal basis for them to do so. Allowing one State to tax transactions in another State would violate a good many laws, and the Constitution.
My point was: if they can pass laws that have no legal or Constitutional basis in this case, what's to stop them from doing it again? They could decide to tax anything, anywhere, and it would not be any less legal than what they did in the former case.
So it would be setting an astounding precedent for lawlessness. If they could pass that law, they could pass any law they want. Constitution bedamned. I'm not necessarily saying they would do that, but they could do that. Because if they can ignore the laws in the first case, they can do it in the second.
"Okay, but you're flirting with sounding like a hick when you emphasize that too much. There is more in common between Alaska and Florida than the Netherlands and Belgium. Or Cambodia and Vietnam. Live a little, eh?"
WHOOSH
"Similarities" don't make a damned bit of difference in this context. They are separate political entities, just like -- believe it or not -- Cambodia and Belgium. Alaska has no more lawful authority to tax a purchase made in Florida than Cambodia has authority to tax a purchase made in Belgium! That's the law. No matter how "similar" they are.
"Out of curiosity, from Point 1, how are states then allowed to tax vehicles purchased out of state (e.g. purchased in Ohio, new owner lives in New York)?"
I explained that later. It's a "use" tax. It's not a sales tax.
It might not seem like a big difference to you because it's the same amount. But it is a very big difference, indeed. A use tax is Constitutional.
I should have added: it's not just the taxes in all those districts... it's the compliance regulations.
In some areas, estimated taxes have to be pre-paid by businesses. Often it is quarterly. Other places no doubt it is semi-annually. Other places might require estimate forms but not pre-payments. Etc.
"There's software that does it - even a small business can do it. What a small business can't do as easily as a large one is "relocate" its headquarters to a state with no sales tax (rent a one room office with mailing address there)."
Please show me a software product that keeps track of all of the thousands of sales tax districts in the US. I have never heard of such.
Keep in mind that sales taxes aren't always just State taxes. My City and County also impose sales taxes. The sales tax is different here than it is just outside the city limits.
"You sure about that? I'm not a simianlogist but from what I've seen they seem to have very expressive faces and make use of posture quite a lot."
I meant "non-verbal human communication". Chimpanzees just don't understand it. Point to some food you have hidden away and a dog will go right to it. A chimpanzee will sit there and stare at you like you're crazy.
"Spoken like someone who doesn't have to bear that burden him or herself..."
And also spoken like someone who doesn't appreciate that we're talking about sales taxes, not payroll taxes, and they've have to be updated all the time, not just once a year.
And also spoken like someone who doesn't appreciate that $180 / 50 states equals $3.60 per state. No big deal. But $3.60 x 2,800 taxing districts = $10,080.00.
"Do you know how small businesses handle payroll taxes now? Do you know how often the rules change?"
Yes, I do.
"Do you know how much has to be deducted from each person at each time in every different situation?"
Yes, I do. (Actually, nothing. The Federal government cannot force companies to withhold employees' taxes. Although they do their best to convince them they do.)
"That's why small businesses pay a service to take care of all of this. There are also services that will handle all of the sales tax rules, as well. It isn't rocket science."
Now take that service, and multiply it by 50. (Actually, multiply it by a few thousand, because that's how many individual taxing districts there are in the U.S.)
Do you think that service would charge you the same? Or do you think it's more reasonable to expect they'll charge you 50 (or a few thousand) times as much, since they have to do 50 (or a few thousand) times as much work?
"If Congress manages to pass this mess it would be nice if they would protect us newly minted tax collectors from incessant out-of-state audits."
Don't forget that small businesses are not the only issue here. Many States don't seem to realize what they'd be giving up: their political Sovereignty. This would not be just "a foot in the door" for loss of States' rights, it would be a gigantic elephant leg, with lots of elephant (and Donkey) poop to go with it.
"And by using affiliates as a sales force, a "significant business nexus" is established in the purchaser's State. Hence, they have to collect sales tax for the purchaser's State, because they pay a sales force there."
And your point is? I already explained this, and we know that the courts claimed there was a significant business nexus there. My whole explanation was about why an "internet sales tax" is unconstitutional.
"but the principle was that the law applied where I was - the UK, and not where the 'transaction' took place - the US"
This has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. Our Federal government has the authority to regulate transactions made with foreign countries. It does NOT have the authority to collect taxes for the States.
Like I said, it has to do with how our country is designed. New York is an independent political entity, it is not a "sub-unit" of the United States, except for the particular powers the Federal government was given by the States to do on their behalf collectively.
New York has no more power to tax a transaction in Oregon than Afghanistan has to tax a transaction in London.
"Yeah, that would be hard. It would require some sort of "automation" using some sort of "adding machine". Jeez, I wonder where online retailers would get such a device..."
This is just stupid. Do you know how many different taxing districts there are in the U.S.? Do you know how often they change their regulations? Do you know what city X requires for reporting and pre-payment of estimated taxes, versus County Y in a different state?
It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.
Heinlein invisaged chimpanzees genetically enhanced to be more intelligent and more like humans.
Chimpanzees are not human. They don't think like humans, they don't behave like humans, they aren't physically built like humans.
Of all these things, probably the most important is that they don't think like humans. At all. Chimpanzees do not understand non-verbal communications even as much as dogs do. They're just not people.
"Wrong. They have to collect sales taxes that apply. Washington State has a sales tax."
The key phrase is "that apply." See my longer explanation above. No State has legal authority to tax a purchase in another state. So if a Washingtonian buys a book from a company in Maine (whether they do it in person or via mail order), Washington sales taxes do not apply.
There IS a tax on the item, though. The Washington resident is legally required to pay a "use tax" on the item, which (not so coincidentally) is the same amount as state sales tax. BUT it's a tax on the USE of the item, within the state. Not a tax on the transaction that happened in another state. That's why it's a legal tax.
However, states have trouble collecting use taxes, because they have to rely on people reporting what they bought, and paying taxes on it. That's why they've been trying to push an (illegal) "internet sales tax". The problem is that an internet sales tax violates our separation of powers. It would give states the power to tax transactions in other states... which is a brand-new taxation power prohibited by the Constitution. As it should be.
There is a lot more going on here than "tax avoidance", bitch.
The main issue is that States have difficulty collecting their "use" taxes on out-of-state purchases (see my longer explanation above). In fact many people are not even aware that "use taxes" exist. That's not tax avoidance, it's simply tax ignorance.
But the main point is that States simply don't have any legal basis for taxing transactions that happen in another State. Period. That is a violation of our separation of powers.
In order to get around this, many States have been advocating an unconstitutional "internet sales tax", but they don't seem to realize what they'd be giving up in the process.
So there's a lot going on here other than mere "tax avoidance".
"Just a note, the UK is also going after tax avoiding, not just Italy, and the same goes for the US....
Nuff said."
No, NOT "nuff said". This is NOT ABOUT "avoiding taxes". It is about the sovereignty of states and their freedom from interference by other states. The U.S. is not the UK. Our government is organized very differently.
We have 50 independent States which have independent tax authority, and Point 1 here is that no State has authority to tax transactions that occur in another State. That would violate the latter State's sovereignty. Point 2 is that the Federal government has no authority to collect taxes on behalf of any State. We have 200 years of case law and prior legal decisions to back this up. (Which, I should add, the current Supreme Court seems to take pride in ignoring.)
In fact this was a hotly debated issue -- in court -- about 150 years ago, when mail-order businesses became popular. A person could send a check to somebody in another State, and that company would send the product to the buyer. When this happens, there is Point 3: the transaction is deemed to take place at the location of the business. That is the only workable way to do it: the transaction doesn't take place at the purchaser's location, because companies would have to keep track of tens of thousands of individual taxing districts throughout the country, and put up with tens of thousands of different sets of regulations concerning how to collect and distribute the taxes. That won't work. Even today, when computers could tell you what the taxes are, keeping track of how much tax to collect, and all the different reporting and payment requirements, would only be possible for giant corporations. Small companies would be out of business.
Point 4 is that Internet sales are mail order. The single difference is method of payment. Most people today buy via credit card rather than sending a check.
Point 5: The courts ruled that if the business has a "significant business nexus" within the purchaser's State (usually meaning a "physical presence" link a branch store or warehouse), the transaction can be deemed to take place in the purchaser's own state and is therefore subject to the sales taxes of that state. This is not unreasonable.
Point 5: To get around the "foreign transaction" problem, States came up with the idea of a "use tax". Since they have no authority to tax a transaction that takes place in another state, what they do is tax the purchaser for the use of the item they purchased elsewhere. The use tax is invariably the same amount as a sales tax would be, BUT it isn't a tax on the transaction, it is a tax on the use of the item within the resident's state. So it is legal.
Point 6: States must rely on people reporting their purchases in order to enforce the "use taxes", which many people do not do. In fact many people do not even know use taxes exist unless they purchase an automobile outside their state, in which case states pretty much know where you got it (because of licensing requirements) and will charge the use tax. However, that leads to
Point 7: Although States find it difficult to enforce use taxes on internet (mail order) purchases, difficulty of enforcing the law still does not change the fact that they have no authority to violate State sovereignty by taxing foreign transactions.
So that is a bit of history about how this actually works. The conclusion is Point 8: there is no lack of taxing power on internet (mail order) sales. It's just that the States find it difficult to enforce their use taxes. That is why they have been pushing for an (unconstitutional) "internet sales tax".
The very concept of an across-the-board "internet sales tax" is in fact a violation of our separation of powers. There is no legal basis for States to tax transactions that occur in other States. If they could do that, they could tax anything, anywhere. Texas could tax a transaction between an Ohio resident that occurs in Maryland. If that sounds ridiculous to you, that's because it is. There is simply no legal basis for any of this.
Then some would-be dictator is elected President, and tells the American people:
"Our food quality sucks. Therefore, we are going to pass a law saying that EVERYBODY must have a contract with the food-delivery industry, or we're going to fine them 20% of their take-home pay."
Talk about corporate welfare! The average American is screwed over even more, while actual HEALTH care declines even more. The only people who benefit are the delivery companies.
Someone once said, "Continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results is one definition of insanity."
To my government: doing MORE of the same thing, when it is demonstrably the CAUSE of the problem in the first place, and expecting better results, is beyond insanity.
"not bullshit at all. Regardless of how you label it we are spending money on health care. and it fits this study perfectly because as you said we are not spending it wisely"
Yes, it is bullshit. I understand that you're agreeing with my basic point that we're no spending wisely, but my other point is an important one. Insurance is not healthcare.
As an analogy: imagine, if you will, that you contracted with someone to deliver your food purchases to your home. You pay them, they go to the store, buy your food, and deliver it. They keep a percentage of the money as payment. So you pay them more than the raw groceries cost at the store, of course. They want to make a profit or they would not do it.
Over time, these delivery companies figure out that they can make more profit if they buy the lowest-quality, cheapest food at the market, while charging you the same price. This process is assisted by the government, which decides it will subsidize this business by getting your employer to offer "delivery plans", at group rates. Sadly, those people who are in business for themselves (e.g., entrepreneurs, who are the primary drivers of our economy) do not get these government subsidies.
More time passes... the delivery companies become the norm. And because they now control the majority of dollars going to the grocery stores, they start to dictate what they will pay the stores for which products. Consistently, they choose the lowest-cost (which coincidentally usually means lowest-quality) products, and squeeze the stores for ever lower prices.
The people who actually bring the product to market -- the stores -- start to say: "Hey... going to expensive secondary and tertiary school and working my ass off for 15 years to be a professional in this business is no longer paying off. I'm going to strongly suggest to my children that they NOT go into this business."
The delivery companies actually start telling people: "We will NOT spend your money on certain products. They are just too expensive and we don't make enough profit. Grocery stores: we don't care how much it costs YOU. We'll only pay you X for it."
Which of course means that the stores stop offering that item. Because THEY no longer profit from it.
The quality of food reaching the bulk of America is drastically reduced, while the cost has gone up dramatically.
Delivery companies do not equal food. Insurance does not equal health care. You mistake the delivery system for the product. They are NOT the same. They are not even close to the same.
"The actual Chinese economic system is a bit complex and not really capitalist, its big players are state owned and the banking system (that is the capitals) is mainly state-owned or under the firm grip of the state."
That's why I didn't write "capitalist". I wrote "more capitalist". The people who run companies today are allowed to keep (some of) the profit. They allowed capitalist incentive to infiltrate many of the markets.
But remember what the U.S. government has often seemed to have forgotten: capitalism requires non-interference from government in order to work. India, China, and Brazil all had too much government intervention in the economy for true capitalism to function. The more capitalist they have become, the better their economies have worked.
In contrast, the less capitalist the U.S. and UK have become, the less well their economies have been doing. I'm not claiming an absolute cause-effect relationship here, but the correlation is pretty much undeniable if you're an honest person.
Slashdot Mirror
"Someone needs to lookup anthropocentrism. Feral humans wouldn't know "human" communication either. Theoretical aliens wouldn't either. Your assumptions fail empirically and rationally."
NO, you are the one who isn't getting the point. These aren't "assumptions". These are extensive behavioral studies done on non-verbal communication between humans and others species.
Domestic dogs get it. Wolves don't. (And yes, they controlled for exposure. It appears [but is not proven] to be a genetic difference between long-domesticated breeds of dog and wolves.)
And chimpanzees get it even less. They just don't understand human non-verbal communication. Again, exposure was controlled for, so it's not a matter of just "not being familiar with our culture".
Repeat: read up about it before accusing others of "irrational assumptions". These are results from controlled empirical studies.
"Yes, in the case of mail order, but not for the reason you state (while it is economically reasonable). The transaction is deemed to take place at the location of the business because that's where the money changes hand. Your money in the mail is still yours. Only when it's _received_ does it become owned by someone else."
Citation? My law professors disagreed with you. Further, it is my understanding that once you post something in the U.S. mail, it does NOT belong to you anymore. It belongs to the addressee. Only in the case where the addressee cannot be found will it be returned.
In fact, I seem to recall some cases in which it was determined that a bill was legally paid on the date of postmark. Which means it belongs to the recipient, not the sender.
"The courts disagreed. It may looks the same in effect, but it's not the same at all from a legal point of view,"
Citation? I am curious about this precedent you refer to.
"The rest, state sovereignty, unconstitutional, blah, blah, blah, is based on this misconception."
No, the State sovereignty and Constitutional arguments are based on the Constitution. The mail-order argument has nothing to do with those. You seemed to think I started with the mail order idea and worked backward from there. Not so.
"Just as in that example, the notion that a state could tax a transaction that occured between 2 different that it didn't even have any part of is ludricrous."
Just as I wrote to someone else here: WHOOSH. You aren't getting the point.
A State has no legal authority to tax another State. There is no legal basis for them to do so. Allowing one State to tax transactions in another State would violate a good many laws, and the Constitution.
My point was: if they can pass laws that have no legal or Constitutional basis in this case, what's to stop them from doing it again? They could decide to tax anything, anywhere, and it would not be any less legal than what they did in the former case.
So it would be setting an astounding precedent for lawlessness. If they could pass that law, they could pass any law they want. Constitution bedamned. I'm not necessarily saying they would do that, but they could do that. Because if they can ignore the laws in the first case, they can do it in the second.
Is that what you want?
"Okay, but you're flirting with sounding like a hick when you emphasize that too much. There is more in common between Alaska and Florida than the Netherlands and Belgium. Or Cambodia and Vietnam. Live a little, eh?"
WHOOSH
"Similarities" don't make a damned bit of difference in this context. They are separate political entities, just like -- believe it or not -- Cambodia and Belgium. Alaska has no more lawful authority to tax a purchase made in Florida than Cambodia has authority to tax a purchase made in Belgium! That's the law. No matter how "similar" they are.
"Out of curiosity, from Point 1, how are states then allowed to tax vehicles purchased out of state (e.g. purchased in Ohio, new owner lives in New York)?"
I explained that later. It's a "use" tax. It's not a sales tax.
It might not seem like a big difference to you because it's the same amount. But it is a very big difference, indeed. A use tax is Constitutional.
I should have added: it's not just the taxes in all those districts... it's the compliance regulations.
In some areas, estimated taxes have to be pre-paid by businesses. Often it is quarterly. Other places no doubt it is semi-annually. Other places might require estimate forms but not pre-payments. Etc.
"There's software that does it - even a small business can do it. What a small business can't do as easily as a large one is "relocate" its headquarters to a state with no sales tax (rent a one room office with mailing address there)."
Please show me a software product that keeps track of all of the thousands of sales tax districts in the US. I have never heard of such.
Keep in mind that sales taxes aren't always just State taxes. My City and County also impose sales taxes. The sales tax is different here than it is just outside the city limits.
"You sure about that? I'm not a simianlogist but from what I've seen they seem to have very expressive faces and make use of posture quite a lot."
I meant "non-verbal human communication". Chimpanzees just don't understand it. Point to some food you have hidden away and a dog will go right to it. A chimpanzee will sit there and stare at you like you're crazy.
Don't take my word for it. Read up on it.
"Payroll tax updates are a whopping $180/year."
"Spoken like someone who doesn't have to bear that burden him or herself..."
And also spoken like someone who doesn't appreciate that we're talking about sales taxes, not payroll taxes, and they've have to be updated all the time, not just once a year.
And also spoken like someone who doesn't appreciate that $180 / 50 states equals $3.60 per state. No big deal. But $3.60 x 2,800 taxing districts = $10,080.00.
"Do you know how small businesses handle payroll taxes now? Do you know how often the rules change?"
Yes, I do.
"Do you know how much has to be deducted from each person at each time in every different situation?"
Yes, I do. (Actually, nothing. The Federal government cannot force companies to withhold employees' taxes. Although they do their best to convince them they do.)
"That's why small businesses pay a service to take care of all of this. There are also services that will handle all of the sales tax rules, as well. It isn't rocket science."
Now take that service, and multiply it by 50. (Actually, multiply it by a few thousand, because that's how many individual taxing districts there are in the U.S.)
Do you think that service would charge you the same? Or do you think it's more reasonable to expect they'll charge you 50 (or a few thousand) times as much, since they have to do 50 (or a few thousand) times as much work?
"If Congress manages to pass this mess it would be nice if they would protect us newly minted tax collectors from incessant out-of-state audits."
Don't forget that small businesses are not the only issue here. Many States don't seem to realize what they'd be giving up: their political Sovereignty. This would not be just "a foot in the door" for loss of States' rights, it would be a gigantic elephant leg, with lots of elephant (and Donkey) poop to go with it.
"And by using affiliates as a sales force, a "significant business nexus" is established in the purchaser's State. Hence, they have to collect sales tax for the purchaser's State, because they pay a sales force there."
And your point is? I already explained this, and we know that the courts claimed there was a significant business nexus there. My whole explanation was about why an "internet sales tax" is unconstitutional.
"but the principle was that the law applied where I was - the UK, and not where the 'transaction' took place - the US"
This has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. Our Federal government has the authority to regulate transactions made with foreign countries. It does NOT have the authority to collect taxes for the States.
Like I said, it has to do with how our country is designed. New York is an independent political entity, it is not a "sub-unit" of the United States, except for the particular powers the Federal government was given by the States to do on their behalf collectively.
New York has no more power to tax a transaction in Oregon than Afghanistan has to tax a transaction in London.
Is there some reason you should capitalize Federal but not State?
The way our country is designed the Federal government is no more than a club formed by the independent States.
"Yeah, that would be hard. It would require some sort of "automation" using some sort of "adding machine". Jeez, I wonder where online retailers would get such a device..."
This is just stupid. Do you know how many different taxing districts there are in the U.S.? Do you know how often they change their regulations? Do you know what city X requires for reporting and pre-payment of estimated taxes, versus County Y in a different state?
It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.
"Heinlein saw this coming in 1947."
No, he didn't.
Heinlein invisaged chimpanzees genetically enhanced to be more intelligent and more like humans.
Chimpanzees are not human. They don't think like humans, they don't behave like humans, they aren't physically built like humans.
Of all these things, probably the most important is that they don't think like humans. At all. Chimpanzees do not understand non-verbal communications even as much as dogs do. They're just not people.
"Wrong. They have to collect sales taxes that apply. Washington State has a sales tax."
The key phrase is "that apply." See my longer explanation above. No State has legal authority to tax a purchase in another state. So if a Washingtonian buys a book from a company in Maine (whether they do it in person or via mail order), Washington sales taxes do not apply.
There IS a tax on the item, though. The Washington resident is legally required to pay a "use tax" on the item, which (not so coincidentally) is the same amount as state sales tax. BUT it's a tax on the USE of the item, within the state. Not a tax on the transaction that happened in another state. That's why it's a legal tax.
However, states have trouble collecting use taxes, because they have to rely on people reporting what they bought, and paying taxes on it. That's why they've been trying to push an (illegal) "internet sales tax". The problem is that an internet sales tax violates our separation of powers. It would give states the power to tax transactions in other states... which is a brand-new taxation power prohibited by the Constitution. As it should be.
There is a lot more going on here than "tax avoidance", bitch.
The main issue is that States have difficulty collecting their "use" taxes on out-of-state purchases (see my longer explanation above). In fact many people are not even aware that "use taxes" exist. That's not tax avoidance, it's simply tax ignorance.
But the main point is that States simply don't have any legal basis for taxing transactions that happen in another State. Period. That is a violation of our separation of powers.
In order to get around this, many States have been advocating an unconstitutional "internet sales tax", but they don't seem to realize what they'd be giving up in the process.
So there's a lot going on here other than mere "tax avoidance".
Corrections:
My point numbering got scrambled at 5. There are actually 9 points, not 8.
"link" should be "like".
"Just a note, the UK is also going after tax avoiding, not just Italy, and the same goes for the US. ...
Nuff said."
No, NOT "nuff said". This is NOT ABOUT "avoiding taxes". It is about the sovereignty of states and their freedom from interference by other states. The U.S. is not the UK. Our government is organized very differently.
We have 50 independent States which have independent tax authority, and Point 1 here is that no State has authority to tax transactions that occur in another State. That would violate the latter State's sovereignty. Point 2 is that the Federal government has no authority to collect taxes on behalf of any State. We have 200 years of case law and prior legal decisions to back this up. (Which, I should add, the current Supreme Court seems to take pride in ignoring.)
In fact this was a hotly debated issue -- in court -- about 150 years ago, when mail-order businesses became popular. A person could send a check to somebody in another State, and that company would send the product to the buyer. When this happens, there is Point 3: the transaction is deemed to take place at the location of the business. That is the only workable way to do it: the transaction doesn't take place at the purchaser's location, because companies would have to keep track of tens of thousands of individual taxing districts throughout the country, and put up with tens of thousands of different sets of regulations concerning how to collect and distribute the taxes. That won't work. Even today, when computers could tell you what the taxes are, keeping track of how much tax to collect, and all the different reporting and payment requirements, would only be possible for giant corporations. Small companies would be out of business.
Point 4 is that Internet sales are mail order. The single difference is method of payment. Most people today buy via credit card rather than sending a check.
Point 5: The courts ruled that if the business has a "significant business nexus" within the purchaser's State (usually meaning a "physical presence" link a branch store or warehouse), the transaction can be deemed to take place in the purchaser's own state and is therefore subject to the sales taxes of that state. This is not unreasonable.
Point 5: To get around the "foreign transaction" problem, States came up with the idea of a "use tax". Since they have no authority to tax a transaction that takes place in another state, what they do is tax the purchaser for the use of the item they purchased elsewhere. The use tax is invariably the same amount as a sales tax would be, BUT it isn't a tax on the transaction, it is a tax on the use of the item within the resident's state. So it is legal.
Point 6: States must rely on people reporting their purchases in order to enforce the "use taxes", which many people do not do. In fact many people do not even know use taxes exist unless they purchase an automobile outside their state, in which case states pretty much know where you got it (because of licensing requirements) and will charge the use tax. However, that leads to
Point 7: Although States find it difficult to enforce use taxes on internet (mail order) purchases, difficulty of enforcing the law still does not change the fact that they have no authority to violate State sovereignty by taxing foreign transactions.
So that is a bit of history about how this actually works. The conclusion is Point 8: there is no lack of taxing power on internet (mail order) sales. It's just that the States find it difficult to enforce their use taxes. That is why they have been pushing for an (unconstitutional) "internet sales tax".
The very concept of an across-the-board "internet sales tax" is in fact a violation of our separation of powers. There is no legal basis for States to tax transactions that occur in other States. If they could do that, they could tax anything, anywhere. Texas could tax a transaction between an Ohio resident that occurs in Maryland. If that sounds ridiculous to you, that's because it is. There is simply no legal basis for any of this.
Pardon me. You are correct. I was referring to Mir, not Wayland (which is appropriate, since the conversation was about Ubuntu).
I almost forgot to add:
Then some would-be dictator is elected President, and tells the American people:
"Our food quality sucks. Therefore, we are going to pass a law saying that EVERYBODY must have a contract with the food-delivery industry, or we're going to fine them 20% of their take-home pay."
Talk about corporate welfare! The average American is screwed over even more, while actual HEALTH care declines even more. The only people who benefit are the delivery companies.
Someone once said, "Continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results is one definition of insanity."
To my government: doing MORE of the same thing, when it is demonstrably the CAUSE of the problem in the first place, and expecting better results, is beyond insanity.
"not bullshit at all. Regardless of how you label it we are spending money on health care. and it fits this study perfectly because as you said we are not spending it wisely"
Yes, it is bullshit. I understand that you're agreeing with my basic point that we're no spending wisely, but my other point is an important one. Insurance is not healthcare.
As an analogy: imagine, if you will, that you contracted with someone to deliver your food purchases to your home. You pay them, they go to the store, buy your food, and deliver it. They keep a percentage of the money as payment. So you pay them more than the raw groceries cost at the store, of course. They want to make a profit or they would not do it.
Over time, these delivery companies figure out that they can make more profit if they buy the lowest-quality, cheapest food at the market, while charging you the same price. This process is assisted by the government, which decides it will subsidize this business by getting your employer to offer "delivery plans", at group rates. Sadly, those people who are in business for themselves (e.g., entrepreneurs, who are the primary drivers of our economy) do not get these government subsidies.
More time passes... the delivery companies become the norm. And because they now control the majority of dollars going to the grocery stores, they start to dictate what they will pay the stores for which products. Consistently, they choose the lowest-cost (which coincidentally usually means lowest-quality) products, and squeeze the stores for ever lower prices.
The people who actually bring the product to market -- the stores -- start to say: "Hey... going to expensive secondary and tertiary school and working my ass off for 15 years to be a professional in this business is no longer paying off. I'm going to strongly suggest to my children that they NOT go into this business."
The delivery companies actually start telling people: "We will NOT spend your money on certain products. They are just too expensive and we don't make enough profit. Grocery stores: we don't care how much it costs YOU. We'll only pay you X for it."
Which of course means that the stores stop offering that item. Because THEY no longer profit from it.
The quality of food reaching the bulk of America is drastically reduced, while the cost has gone up dramatically.
Delivery companies do not equal food. Insurance does not equal health care. You mistake the delivery system for the product. They are NOT the same. They are not even close to the same.
"The actual Chinese economic system is a bit complex and not really capitalist, its big players are state owned and the banking system (that is the capitals) is mainly state-owned or under the firm grip of the state."
That's why I didn't write "capitalist". I wrote "more capitalist". The people who run companies today are allowed to keep (some of) the profit. They allowed capitalist incentive to infiltrate many of the markets.
But remember what the U.S. government has often seemed to have forgotten: capitalism requires non-interference from government in order to work. India, China, and Brazil all had too much government intervention in the economy for true capitalism to function. The more capitalist they have become, the better their economies have worked.
In contrast, the less capitalist the U.S. and UK have become, the less well their economies have been doing. I'm not claiming an absolute cause-effect relationship here, but the correlation is pretty much undeniable if you're an honest person.
"Obviously You have _only_ read Adam Smith. And maybe Atlas Shrugged."
I mean seriously? Saying "You've only read Adam Smith about capitalism" is kind of like saying "You've only read J.K. Rowling about Harry Potter."