You would lose money hand over fist trying to keep track of all of the sales tax rules and keep it up to date at only 0.5 percent of the tax collected.
Why should local jurisdictions have to adjust their tax laws just because the Post Office found it convenient to lump parts of them together for the delivery of mail? Any correlation between zip codes and taxing jurisdictions is purely chance.
Um, he was not talking about being a foreign customer, he was talking about being a foreign vendor. Why should he be required to collect sales tax if he sells something to someone in the U.S. and ships it to them? And in fact, he is not required to collect sales tax.
I do not know the law, but would I be required to collect the VAT if I sold something to someone in England and shipped it to them? Would you support a law requiring online businesses in the U.S. to do so? If not, why do you support a law requiring a business in California to collect sales tax for New York?
If you buy something the tax does not depend on who you bought it from. In every state in the U.S. that I am aware of, you are required to pay the same tax when you purchase something no matter where you buy it from. The difference being that if you bought it from an organization that is not under the jurisdiction of the state you live in, THEY are not required to collect it for the state and it is YOUR obligation to report and pay the tax (in which case it is called a "Use tax" rather than a "sales tax", but the rate is the same). Just because most people are unaware of this law, and most of those who are aware ignore it, is no reason to burden those not subject to your state's laws with having to keep track of what they are.
If the people in charge want it to work, they can make it work.
So, what you are saying is that the Obama Administration wanted this to fail, because they are in charge of healthcare.gov. Not only that, but they were able to get this law written however they wanted. They chose to have the law written so that it would be their responsibility if the states did not choose to build their own exchanges. They thought they were blackmailing the states into setting up exchanges. The Republicans governors said, "Our voters don't want this system. You are insisting in forcing this on people who do not want it. We do not think it can work and we will not be complicit in forcing it on them." Now, you are blaming them because it did not work, just like they said it wouldn't.
I'm sorry, when you put something into place over the objections of people who do not want what you are doing, even if it would work, you do not get to blame them when it doesn't work. The Democrats insisted on implementing this. If they were unable to make it work without the Republicans help, they should not have tried, since the Republicans made it clear that they were NOT going to help.
Well, they have sold the content to someone. That someone is free to watch that material. However, the footage is still under copyright, so whoever currently owns the copyright can prevent it from being distributed to anyone else (except by selling the original LaserDisk).
The only thing about your comment that I understand is that you do not like me. Are you saying that monopolies CAN easily exist without government intervention? Are you saying that thinking it requires government intervention to create monopolies is a liberal idea (the most common usage I have seen of the term "libertard" is to refer to those people who call themselves "liberals', but are actually psuedo-fascists)?
Yes, the evidence suggests that Amazon is aiming for a monopoly. However, history suggests that they will fail. My study of history says that monopolies only arise when the government intervenes to suppress competitors (there may be some industries which are an exception to this, but Amazon is not in one of those).
A) there is a significant chance that a non-electric car will be in the parking spot for the electric car charger when someone with an electric car pulls in to charge up.
B) the electric charging spots are reserved for electric cars, reducing the capacity of the parking lot for other vehicles (since there are currently so few electric cars on the road, this is significant)
C) every parking space has an electric charger, which is a waste of money, since currently there are so few electric cars on the road...and most projections say that it will be a long time before they are a major percentage of cars on the road.
The difference is that if a doctor makes too many decisions that the insurance company doesn't like, he just does not get paid. If he makes too many decisions that the IPAB does not agree with, he can lose his license to practice medicine.
Actually, no one is forced to buy, they can choose to pay the tax instead. Or, for that matter, they can make sure that they are not due a refund on their taxes and not pay the tax either (the only authority the IRS has to enforce the tax for not having health insurance is to withhold any tax refund which an individual might be due).
Actually, the "advise and consent" provision is for every government job that the Constitution does not specifically specify how it is assigned, unless Congress has specifically invested some other entity with the power to appoint someone to the role without their involvement. Basically, whenever the Administration creates a new category of job, they either need to get the "advice and consent" of the Senate, or they need to get Congress to pass a law saying that they do not need such advice and consent for this particular job (the further down the chain of command the job is, the more likely that a law that can be read to give such permission already exists).
There are two things I want to point out. First, you are claiming that the Democrats passed the ACA even though they knew what a mess it was. Second, there is indeed a "death panel" in the ACA. Oh, it is not called that. It is called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, but it gets to decide what care will be paid for and what care won't be paid for, regardless of what your doctor may think is the best treatment for you. That means that it will decide that lifesaving care will not be paid for some people because of their age, or other health issues, or some other, as yet undetermined, criteria.
Once adoption of autonomous cars passes a certain level, manually driven cars will be outlawed for everyone except the rich and politically powerful. The government will love the fact that your car will only take you to places which they have designated as appropriate for you to go to. Any other location which you may wish to go to will not exist as far as your car is concerned.
The person you are replying to is not the problem. They identified a genuine problem for Wikipedia and explained how Wikipedia's policies address it.
That being said, you have presented an alternate approach to solving the problem they identified that I think may be superior to the one currently in place.
Well, you know, maybe we should wait until vehicles that do not use gasoline and/or diesel are a significant portion of the cars on the road in order to try to come up with a solution. Of course, we all know the answer to that. If we do that, the solution might not give us an excuse to put a tracking device in every vehicle.
The only reason to make this type of argument in a video is because you know your arguments will not stand up to careful scrutiny (no, I did not watch the video). If you have carefully thought out arguments, you put them in writing so that people can easily follow the flow of your logic, and go back and review how earlier pieces of your argument fit into what you just said.
Except that clearly SOMEONE was trying to create a backdoor. That someone may not have been a government agency, in fact the summary seems pretty clear to me that they are not saying that it WAS a government agency. The summary clearly states that there is currently no way to know who put the backdoor code into the kernel repository.
A backdoor is not necessarily something put in to allow a government agency to access a system. The term "backdoor" refers to any code which intentionally allows an unauthorized user of the system to access the system (there are probably a few cases where something was considered a "backdoor" that was not intentionally written for that purpose, but generally, such code only comes about when someone does it on purpose).
Slashdot Mirror
You would lose money hand over fist trying to keep track of all of the sales tax rules and keep it up to date at only 0.5 percent of the tax collected.
As someone else pointed out, there was a constitutional amendment passed to make income tax constitutional, so it is not unconstitutional.
Why should local jurisdictions have to adjust their tax laws just because the Post Office found it convenient to lump parts of them together for the delivery of mail? Any correlation between zip codes and taxing jurisdictions is purely chance.
Um, he was not talking about being a foreign customer, he was talking about being a foreign vendor. Why should he be required to collect sales tax if he sells something to someone in the U.S. and ships it to them? And in fact, he is not required to collect sales tax.
I do not know the law, but would I be required to collect the VAT if I sold something to someone in England and shipped it to them? Would you support a law requiring online businesses in the U.S. to do so? If not, why do you support a law requiring a business in California to collect sales tax for New York?
If you buy something the tax does not depend on who you bought it from. In every state in the U.S. that I am aware of, you are required to pay the same tax when you purchase something no matter where you buy it from. The difference being that if you bought it from an organization that is not under the jurisdiction of the state you live in, THEY are not required to collect it for the state and it is YOUR obligation to report and pay the tax (in which case it is called a "Use tax" rather than a "sales tax", but the rate is the same). Just because most people are unaware of this law, and most of those who are aware ignore it, is no reason to burden those not subject to your state's laws with having to keep track of what they are.
If anybody is committing an offense, it would be the ones choosing to screw the people they're supposed to represent.
Another person who complains about the Republicans and then indicts the Democrats
If the people in charge want it to work, they can make it work.
So, what you are saying is that the Obama Administration wanted this to fail, because they are in charge of healthcare.gov. Not only that, but they were able to get this law written however they wanted. They chose to have the law written so that it would be their responsibility if the states did not choose to build their own exchanges. They thought they were blackmailing the states into setting up exchanges. The Republicans governors said, "Our voters don't want this system. You are insisting in forcing this on people who do not want it. We do not think it can work and we will not be complicit in forcing it on them." Now, you are blaming them because it did not work, just like they said it wouldn't.
I'm sorry, when you put something into place over the objections of people who do not want what you are doing, even if it would work, you do not get to blame them when it doesn't work. The Democrats insisted on implementing this. If they were unable to make it work without the Republicans help, they should not have tried, since the Republicans made it clear that they were NOT going to help.
Well, they have sold the content to someone. That someone is free to watch that material. However, the footage is still under copyright, so whoever currently owns the copyright can prevent it from being distributed to anyone else (except by selling the original LaserDisk).
The only thing about your comment that I understand is that you do not like me. Are you saying that monopolies CAN easily exist without government intervention? Are you saying that thinking it requires government intervention to create monopolies is a liberal idea (the most common usage I have seen of the term "libertard" is to refer to those people who call themselves "liberals', but are actually psuedo-fascists)?
You claim to be upset about a party purposely allying itself with corporate interests, THEN propose that we should all vote for that Party?
No, governments CREATE monopolies, without government intervention very few, if any, monopolies could come into existence.
Yes, the evidence suggests that Amazon is aiming for a monopoly. However, history suggests that they will fail. My study of history says that monopolies only arise when the government intervenes to suppress competitors (there may be some industries which are an exception to this, but Amazon is not in one of those).
The difference is that if a doctor makes too many decisions that the insurance company doesn't like, he just does not get paid. If he makes too many decisions that the IPAB does not agree with, he can lose his license to practice medicine.
Actually, no one is forced to buy, they can choose to pay the tax instead. Or, for that matter, they can make sure that they are not due a refund on their taxes and not pay the tax either (the only authority the IRS has to enforce the tax for not having health insurance is to withhold any tax refund which an individual might be due).
Actually, the "advise and consent" provision is for every government job that the Constitution does not specifically specify how it is assigned, unless Congress has specifically invested some other entity with the power to appoint someone to the role without their involvement. Basically, whenever the Administration creates a new category of job, they either need to get the "advice and consent" of the Senate, or they need to get Congress to pass a law saying that they do not need such advice and consent for this particular job (the further down the chain of command the job is, the more likely that a law that can be read to give such permission already exists).
There are two things I want to point out. First, you are claiming that the Democrats passed the ACA even though they knew what a mess it was. Second, there is indeed a "death panel" in the ACA. Oh, it is not called that. It is called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, but it gets to decide what care will be paid for and what care won't be paid for, regardless of what your doctor may think is the best treatment for you. That means that it will decide that lifesaving care will not be paid for some people because of their age, or other health issues, or some other, as yet undetermined, criteria.
Once adoption of autonomous cars passes a certain level, manually driven cars will be outlawed for everyone except the rich and politically powerful. The government will love the fact that your car will only take you to places which they have designated as appropriate for you to go to. Any other location which you may wish to go to will not exist as far as your car is concerned.
The person you are replying to is not the problem. They identified a genuine problem for Wikipedia and explained how Wikipedia's policies address it.
That being said, you have presented an alternate approach to solving the problem they identified that I think may be superior to the one currently in place.
Yes, but how much worse is it if you have to go through that on your side and then again on the other company's side?
Well, you know, maybe we should wait until vehicles that do not use gasoline and/or diesel are a significant portion of the cars on the road in order to try to come up with a solution. Of course, we all know the answer to that. If we do that, the solution might not give us an excuse to put a tracking device in every vehicle.
But then what excuse will they have for installing a tracking device in every vehicle?
The only reason to make this type of argument in a video is because you know your arguments will not stand up to careful scrutiny (no, I did not watch the video). If you have carefully thought out arguments, you put them in writing so that people can easily follow the flow of your logic, and go back and review how earlier pieces of your argument fit into what you just said.
Except that clearly SOMEONE was trying to create a backdoor. That someone may not have been a government agency, in fact the summary seems pretty clear to me that they are not saying that it WAS a government agency. The summary clearly states that there is currently no way to know who put the backdoor code into the kernel repository.
A backdoor is not necessarily something put in to allow a government agency to access a system. The term "backdoor" refers to any code which intentionally allows an unauthorized user of the system to access the system (there are probably a few cases where something was considered a "backdoor" that was not intentionally written for that purpose, but generally, such code only comes about when someone does it on purpose).
Excuse me, the ACA is the first step to fixing the problem with funding for Medicare and Medicaid by expanding them?