I have to wonder if it's even legal for a company to charge me tax that I shouldn't be charged.
The answer is almost certainly "No", and if the state wanted to go after them, they could quite likely be subject to a pretty hefty fine. I would recommend that you report such merchants to the state Attorney General's office.
Except that it isn't 50 different tax codes, it is several thousand (many states have varying tax rates and codes for different municipalities within the state).
Maybe you haven't noticed, but Dell, Apple and Amazon do multiple millions of dollars in sales each year. Now if you think they should be given even more competitive advantage over small retailers, then this law is a great idea.
What's more it's unduly burdensome on the consumer to have to keep track of such sales for the state.
Then maybe you should get your state legislators to change your tax laws. Why should somebody in another state have to keep track of the tax laws in every municipality in every state in the country? If you think it is an unreasonable burden on you to keep track of sales tax, think about the burden on a small, one-person business that sells a couple hundred dollars a year in merchandise over the Internet.
You mean an up t odate database all the states and all of the municipalities within those states that collect sales tax...and don't forget that you need a map that tells you which taxing municipality every address in every state is in. Admittedly you do not currently need to know that for the states that do not charge sales tax at any level. Oh yeah, you also need to know what items sales tax applies to in every sales tax charging municipality in the country and don't forget those special tax holidays that many of them pass each year that only apply to certain types of items out of those they otherwise charge sales tax on.
And, sorry, but a database of zip codes does NOT match up to the boundaries of taxing jurisdictions.
As far as I can tell, school shootings are no more common in the U.S. on a per person basis than anywhere else in the world. There are two reasons they seem more common in the U.S. The first is that they get more press. The second is that there are more people in the U.S. relative to the populations of other countries than most people realize.
Most of whom would be gone (well probably not the same ones, but the same number, or even more) if Saddam Hussein was still in power. Over his rule, Saddam killed a similar number of Iraqis, on average, each year as the average for the number who were killed each year since he was removed from power.
There are no "stricter COPPA Laws" coming. There are stricter regulations enforcing the COPPA law that already exists. The problem is that once again we are asking the government to do the job of somebody else, in this case the parents.
The most important part of the article is completely ignored by the summary. Wastewater treatment plants stopped accepting the waste water from fracking operations because it seemed likely that the results this study found would be the case (the study needed to be done to confirm that what was apparent was what was real). Treating the waste water from fracking operations is a greater expense than treating other waste water. The fracking operations are appropriately forced to absorb this cost. That means that there is no actual problem here.
All of the "studies" I have seen "proving" that DST saves energy are thought "experiments" rather than actual real life studies of what happens when some locale changes from not having DST to having DST. All of the studies of actual occurrences of changing from never changing the clocks to implementing DST have shown an increase use of energy after the change (although in at least one of those cases the change was small and could potentially be attributed to other causes). In other words, all real-world studies of energy use and DST indicate that best case scenario is that DST makes NO difference in energy use and quite possibly increases it.
Yes, but before the end of last year Obama said "Give me tax increases now to resolve the 'fiscal clif'" and we can talk about spending cuts when 'sequestration' hits." Then when sequestration came along, Obama said, "OK, if you don't give me more tax increases and reduce the amount that we chose not to increase federal spending, I will veto any bill you pass offering me more flexibility in how I apply those reductions in increased spending." Obama believes that current federal spending trajectories are sustainable for at least the next ten years.
Obama offered reductions in spending increases in the "out years" in exchange for tax increases now. The ratio is irrelevant because those reductions in spending increases would have to actually be passed into law at a later date to mean anything. The only "spending" bill that means anything is the one that applies to current spending, where Obama was offering almost nothing.
Well, no new Twinkies have been "born" since November. Fortunately, Twinkies have a life span of indefinite duration and scientists are now predicting that they will be able to get them started at reproduction again by this summer.
AMD has another advantage in this sort of business. Since they no longer own their own fabrication plants, they can simply contract this out to another fabrication plant if it becomes a constraint on their first choice fabrication vendor.
Never mind. You are convinced that it is more important to attack an organization that you have no connection with than worrying about people who technically work for you.
The pope claims that his moral authority comes from God and that the teachings of the Church are based on the Bible. You can go to the Bible and see if it supports his claims. The school administrator claims that his authority is based on ??? what good does it do you, if your child is attending the school run by a particular school administrator that some other school administrator teaches a different set of moral rules from the one where your child attends?
Except that the only reason that the overwhelming majority of car buyers care about MPG is because of cost. And ethanol increases the cost of a gallon of fuel as well.
I have no way to determine if that is true, maybe the difference was a more thorough cover up in those countries (since I am not in those countries and you did not specify which countries they were in the first place, I have no way to evaluate your claim).
Right, according to you when someone claims to represent a moral authority that says that abusing children is wrong abuses children (or covers up the abuse of children) that is worse than someone who claims to be looking out for children the interests of children, even against their own parents, abuses children (or covers up the abuse of children) since that latter someone is claiming to be able to make moral determinations on their own authority. I disagree.
Well, school administrators routinely claim greater moral authority than anyone else on the basis of, well nothing other than the fact that they are school administrators. They routinely claim that your children should follow their moral guidance because they are school administrators. The Catholic Church at least relies on claiming that their moral authority derives from another source, a source you can go to to compare their moral claims to. Your child's school principal bases his or her claim to moral authority on the fact that they are a school principal. There is no place your child can turn to to see if they are living up to the moral claims that they are making. I would argue that the school principal is making the infinitely stronger claim to moral authority since they are not offering any source to which you can turn to test their pronouncement of moral right and wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you are basically arguing in favor of eliminating all truly small businesses.
A business that does a couple of hundred dollars a year in sales over the Internet isn't viable.
Why not? If it only takes you an hour or two a month? Basically what you are saying is that you like the market being dominated by big business.
How are you going to keep it up to date for your business that does a couple hundred dollars a year in sales over the Internet?
I have to wonder if it's even legal for a company to charge me tax that I shouldn't be charged.
The answer is almost certainly "No", and if the state wanted to go after them, they could quite likely be subject to a pretty hefty fine. I would recommend that you report such merchants to the state Attorney General's office.
So, are you paying the tax on the stuff you purchase from out of state? Since you admit that you owe it.
Except that it isn't 50 different tax codes, it is several thousand (many states have varying tax rates and codes for different municipalities within the state).
Maybe you haven't noticed, but Dell, Apple and Amazon do multiple millions of dollars in sales each year. Now if you think they should be given even more competitive advantage over small retailers, then this law is a great idea.
What's more it's unduly burdensome on the consumer to have to keep track of such sales for the state.
Then maybe you should get your state legislators to change your tax laws. Why should somebody in another state have to keep track of the tax laws in every municipality in every state in the country? If you think it is an unreasonable burden on you to keep track of sales tax, think about the burden on a small, one-person business that sells a couple hundred dollars a year in merchandise over the Internet.
You mean an up t odate database all the states and all of the municipalities within those states that collect sales tax...and don't forget that you need a map that tells you which taxing municipality every address in every state is in. Admittedly you do not currently need to know that for the states that do not charge sales tax at any level. Oh yeah, you also need to know what items sales tax applies to in every sales tax charging municipality in the country and don't forget those special tax holidays that many of them pass each year that only apply to certain types of items out of those they otherwise charge sales tax on.
And, sorry, but a database of zip codes does NOT match up to the boundaries of taxing jurisdictions.
As far as I can tell, school shootings are no more common in the U.S. on a per person basis than anywhere else in the world. There are two reasons they seem more common in the U.S. The first is that they get more press. The second is that there are more people in the U.S. relative to the populations of other countries than most people realize.
Most of whom would be gone (well probably not the same ones, but the same number, or even more) if Saddam Hussein was still in power. Over his rule, Saddam killed a similar number of Iraqis, on average, each year as the average for the number who were killed each year since he was removed from power.
There are no "stricter COPPA Laws" coming. There are stricter regulations enforcing the COPPA law that already exists. The problem is that once again we are asking the government to do the job of somebody else, in this case the parents.
The most important part of the article is completely ignored by the summary. Wastewater treatment plants stopped accepting the waste water from fracking operations because it seemed likely that the results this study found would be the case (the study needed to be done to confirm that what was apparent was what was real). Treating the waste water from fracking operations is a greater expense than treating other waste water. The fracking operations are appropriately forced to absorb this cost. That means that there is no actual problem here.
All of the "studies" I have seen "proving" that DST saves energy are thought "experiments" rather than actual real life studies of what happens when some locale changes from not having DST to having DST. All of the studies of actual occurrences of changing from never changing the clocks to implementing DST have shown an increase use of energy after the change (although in at least one of those cases the change was small and could potentially be attributed to other causes). In other words, all real-world studies of energy use and DST indicate that best case scenario is that DST makes NO difference in energy use and quite possibly increases it.
Nobody addresses the fruit wine, much more likely path to first booze?
That's because the topic of conversation is the advent of beer, not wine, not even the advent of human consumption of alcohol.
Yes, but before the end of last year Obama said "Give me tax increases now to resolve the 'fiscal clif'" and we can talk about spending cuts when 'sequestration' hits." Then when sequestration came along, Obama said, "OK, if you don't give me more tax increases and reduce the amount that we chose not to increase federal spending, I will veto any bill you pass offering me more flexibility in how I apply those reductions in increased spending." Obama believes that current federal spending trajectories are sustainable for at least the next ten years.
Obama offered reductions in spending increases in the "out years" in exchange for tax increases now. The ratio is irrelevant because those reductions in spending increases would have to actually be passed into law at a later date to mean anything. The only "spending" bill that means anything is the one that applies to current spending, where Obama was offering almost nothing.
Have YOU ever tasted a "stale" Twinkie? How could you tell?
Well, no new Twinkies have been "born" since November. Fortunately, Twinkies have a life span of indefinite duration and scientists are now predicting that they will be able to get them started at reproduction again by this summer.
AMD has another advantage in this sort of business. Since they no longer own their own fabrication plants, they can simply contract this out to another fabrication plant if it becomes a constraint on their first choice fabrication vendor.
Never mind. You are convinced that it is more important to attack an organization that you have no connection with than worrying about people who technically work for you.
The pope claims that his moral authority comes from God and that the teachings of the Church are based on the Bible. You can go to the Bible and see if it supports his claims. The school administrator claims that his authority is based on ??? what good does it do you, if your child is attending the school run by a particular school administrator that some other school administrator teaches a different set of moral rules from the one where your child attends?
Except that the only reason that the overwhelming majority of car buyers care about MPG is because of cost. And ethanol increases the cost of a gallon of fuel as well.
I have no way to determine if that is true, maybe the difference was a more thorough cover up in those countries (since I am not in those countries and you did not specify which countries they were in the first place, I have no way to evaluate your claim).
Right, according to you when someone claims to represent a moral authority that says that abusing children is wrong abuses children (or covers up the abuse of children) that is worse than someone who claims to be looking out for children the interests of children, even against their own parents, abuses children (or covers up the abuse of children) since that latter someone is claiming to be able to make moral determinations on their own authority. I disagree.
Well, school administrators routinely claim greater moral authority than anyone else on the basis of, well nothing other than the fact that they are school administrators. They routinely claim that your children should follow their moral guidance because they are school administrators. The Catholic Church at least relies on claiming that their moral authority derives from another source, a source you can go to to compare their moral claims to. Your child's school principal bases his or her claim to moral authority on the fact that they are a school principal. There is no place your child can turn to to see if they are living up to the moral claims that they are making. I would argue that the school principal is making the infinitely stronger claim to moral authority since they are not offering any source to which you can turn to test their pronouncement of moral right and wrong.