Some aspects of climate change are already irreversible, at least in the lifetime of anyone alive today or their grandchildren. The longer we wait to address the issue more things become irreversible and the more out of balance things become leading to even greater disruption.
Yes, I think you are right. Nevertheless the buyers are usually responsible for paying the tax due and not requiring online retailers to collect it abets their lawbreaking. Once and online retailers sales in a state reach a certain point I think it's reasonable for them to be required to collect the tax.
Yes, they borrow money, mostly through floating bonds. But they still have to balance their budget including the repayment of those bonds. States just don't have the same ability as the Federal Government to deficit spend.
Yep, and they have to resources of the unaffected parts of the country to call on so they will get back to normal in a while. If everyone is affected then you get a new normal.
If MA isn't charging a sales tax and since you are ordering online from a CA retailer you don't pay CA sales tax then if you don't take it on yourself to pay the use tax you're just a tax cheater gaming the system.
"Global warming" has been happening since the last Ice Age started to wind down.
Actually the evidence I've see shows that temperatures hit a peak during the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 8,000 years ago and in general it has been slowly cooling since then.
That's a good analogy. Climate change is not something that can be stopped in a short time. Even if we could stop increasing CO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow it would take 30-40 years for the warming to completely stop and absent active removal of CO2 from the atmosphere thousands of years for it to drop back down to around 300 ppmv.
When scientists talk about trends like increasing sea level they're nearly always talking about the longer term trend. If you statistically analyze the past record you can determine how long a period you have to use for the trend signal to override the noise in the signal. A recent paper by Ben Santer et. al. states it takes at least 17 years of temperature records for the warming signal to show:
"Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature."
Some things are already irreversible, at least in the lifetime of anyone alive today. It's not a binary question. The sooner we reduce CO2 emissions and the more we reduce them the less bad the ultimate outcome will be.
Yes, the sea level has gone down the past couple of years. The main reason for that is all of the major precipitation events that have been going on around the world. The puts the water on land that take several years to return to the ocean. The GRACE satellites have shown by measuring gravity an increase in the areas where the precipitation has occurred.
Why would that delay shipping? How long does it take to calculate a sales tax on a computer. And if you're ordering from Canada I would think there's some sort of import duty imposed when the shipment crosses the border. There is for the products my company ships to Canada.
What the/. post doesn't put in there from the IEA report is:
Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.
Delaying is more costly than doing something.
Some level of irreversible climate change is already inevitable. It's just a matter of how bad it gets.
Yes, plenty of people cheat on the use tax. I think once an online retailers sales in a state reach a certain threshold it's reasonable that they should collect sales tax. I think what needs to happen is an online sales tax clearing house that allows easy computation of sales tax based on zip code that any online retailer can use. Just pass it the address you're shipping to and the other information then it returns the sales tax owed. Then the online retailer can remit the tax to the clearing house with passes it on to the state with a small handling fee to pay for the clearing house. That would make it simple.
I've bought things in Washington and shown my Oregon drivers license to get the sales tax deducted. I don't bother doing that for small purchases though.
Do you think the cost of shipping isn't included in the brick and mortar stores prices? Admittedly bulk shipping that the B&M stores use is usually cheaper but it's still there.
I have no objection to you buying from online retailers. I just don't think they deserve an advantage over other retailers by not having to collect the sales tax. I buy some things online but other things at brick and mortar stores. For some things I want to be able to touch and feel them before I buy and having a local place to go back to if you have problems, someone who has to look you the eye, is good for resolving them. In the end it doesn't really matter much to me because I live in Oregon. We don't have a sales tax.
You are talking about Federal taxes, not state and local taxes which is the subject of this post. In general state and local governments are required to balance their budgets.
Why should some online retailer have an advantage over your local retailer because they don't have to collect the sales tax? When the internet first got going the feds made a rule that you couldn't charge state sales taxes over the internet. That was probably a good thing at the time to encourage the growth of the internet. But it's here to stay now so we can move beyond the startup phase.. Why should you be allowed to avoid your local sales tax/use tax by buying online. Morally you don't have a leg to stand on in that argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out the new Optical Cavity Furnace.
Some say we don't inherit the Earth from our parents, we borrow it from our grandchildren.
Some aspects of climate change are already irreversible, at least in the lifetime of anyone alive today or their grandchildren. The longer we wait to address the issue more things become irreversible and the more out of balance things become leading to even greater disruption.
Yes, I think you are right. Nevertheless the buyers are usually responsible for paying the tax due and not requiring online retailers to collect it abets their lawbreaking. Once and online retailers sales in a state reach a certain point I think it's reasonable for them to be required to collect the tax.
Yes, they borrow money, mostly through floating bonds. But they still have to balance their budget including the repayment of those bonds. States just don't have the same ability as the Federal Government to deficit spend.
Yep, and they have to resources of the unaffected parts of the country to call on so they will get back to normal in a while. If everyone is affected then you get a new normal.
If MA isn't charging a sales tax and since you are ordering online from a CA retailer you don't pay CA sales tax then if you don't take it on yourself to pay the use tax you're just a tax cheater gaming the system.
It's worth a try but I'm not sure all states allow it.
The IEA is not known for hyperbolic exaggeration.
"Global warming" has been happening since the last Ice Age started to wind down.
Actually the evidence I've see shows that temperatures hit a peak during the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 8,000 years ago and in general it has been slowly cooling since then.
That's a good analogy. Climate change is not something that can be stopped in a short time. Even if we could stop increasing CO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow it would take 30-40 years for the warming to completely stop and absent active removal of CO2 from the atmosphere thousands of years for it to drop back down to around 300 ppmv.
When scientists talk about trends like increasing sea level they're nearly always talking about the longer term trend. If you statistically analyze the past record you can determine how long a period you have to use for the trend signal to override the noise in the signal. A recent paper by Ben Santer et. al. states it takes at least 17 years of temperature records for the warming signal to show:
"Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature."
Some things are already irreversible, at least in the lifetime of anyone alive today. It's not a binary question. The sooner we reduce CO2 emissions and the more we reduce them the less bad the ultimate outcome will be.
Yes, the sea level has gone down the past couple of years. The main reason for that is all of the major precipitation events that have been going on around the world. The puts the water on land that take several years to return to the ocean. The GRACE satellites have shown by measuring gravity an increase in the areas where the precipitation has occurred.
Why would that delay shipping? How long does it take to calculate a sales tax on a computer. And if you're ordering from Canada I would think there's some sort of import duty imposed when the shipment crosses the border. There is for the products my company ships to Canada.
What the /. post doesn't put in there from the IEA report is:
Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.
Delaying is more costly than doing something.
Some level of irreversible climate change is already inevitable. It's just a matter of how bad it gets.
Yes, plenty of people cheat on the use tax. I think once an online retailers sales in a state reach a certain threshold it's reasonable that they should collect sales tax. I think what needs to happen is an online sales tax clearing house that allows easy computation of sales tax based on zip code that any online retailer can use. Just pass it the address you're shipping to and the other information then it returns the sales tax owed. Then the online retailer can remit the tax to the clearing house with passes it on to the state with a small handling fee to pay for the clearing house. That would make it simple.
I've bought things in Washington and shown my Oregon drivers license to get the sales tax deducted. I don't bother doing that for small purchases though.
Do you think the cost of shipping isn't included in the brick and mortar stores prices? Admittedly bulk shipping that the B&M stores use is usually cheaper but it's still there.
They would still have to balance their budget, just lower. They can't do deficit spending like the feds.
States, etc. can't print money like the Fed's. They're hurting because tax receipts are down due to the recession.
I have no objection to you buying from online retailers. I just don't think they deserve an advantage over other retailers by not having to collect the sales tax. I buy some things online but other things at brick and mortar stores. For some things I want to be able to touch and feel them before I buy and having a local place to go back to if you have problems, someone who has to look you the eye, is good for resolving them. In the end it doesn't really matter much to me because I live in Oregon. We don't have a sales tax.
You are talking about Federal taxes, not state and local taxes which is the subject of this post. In general state and local governments are required to balance their budgets.
Why should some online retailer have an advantage over your local retailer because they don't have to collect the sales tax? When the internet first got going the feds made a rule that you couldn't charge state sales taxes over the internet. That was probably a good thing at the time to encourage the growth of the internet. But it's here to stay now so we can move beyond the startup phase.. Why should you be allowed to avoid your local sales tax/use tax by buying online. Morally you don't have a leg to stand on in that argument.
Yep. The easiest place to run a line would be across the Bering Straight but then it'd still be a long distance to the sources of solar power.