13. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (62%) 14. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (37%) 15. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (29%)
...
I would not vote for Badnarik, given the chance. However, it's him after Brown and LaRouche? Am I that much of a wacko? (Yes, I left the candidate filtering off)
We agree on things 100%. I never have argued for a moratorium on all internet sales taxes. I just said I'd love it;-)
Anyway, my original point was that PC Mag unfairly dissed Bush when he "answered" the question. His position on the issue was quite clear from the question two prior to that one we are discussing. His position is the same as Kerry's. And neither said anything relevant about sales taxes on goods purchased over the internet (which is what I inferred the question's "internet sales and service" to mean). One could argue that the phrase really means "the sale of internet access" although I doubt PC Mag meant that.
I agree that IFTA was important and it should have cleared up the potential multiple tax problem. However, if the law were to go away, would the new tax situation still be unclear? I cannot imagine that sales tax would be charged any differently than what would exist assuming a business nexus blah, blah, blah, as it currently does. Prior to IFTA, I cannot recall a business trying to charge sales tax on internet goods based on its own physical location without regards to the buyer's location.
Which are the bigger losers? I've always found that the "in crowd" are lamer than the people too lame to be in the "in crowd", if you know what I'm saying.
I know exactly what you are saying. You are saying that you are in the 'too lame to be in the "in crowd"' crowd.
I thought that attending university where no one knew me would allow me to "start over" and start at a 10 of 10 on the cool scale. Little did I know that my previous school records would be transferred to every student in my dormitory so that they would know I was actually only a 3.6. When teachers say that your actions at school will "go on your permanent record" they really do mean it!
In my xx years of purchases over the internet, I have never been charged more sales tax than would have otherwise been charged at a physical store in my location. If this was to happen, I would think that there are already laws in place to allow the refund claim of such taxes.
This all started when internet purchases were new and everyone (incorrectly) got a free ride for a while. Now that states are catching on to the fact that revenue is being lost in significant amounts, they are simply trying to collect what was already taxed (in some fashion or another) under prior law. It was simply a matter of lack of enforcement.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love a law banning sales taxes on internet purchases. With virtually every state in financial crisis, I don't see that happening.
I assumed the '"multiple or discriminatory" taxes on electronic commerce' part addressed the specific Internet Sales tax issue.
Why? Charging sales tax on a purchase over the internet (harmonized with state/local tax law) is neither multiple nor discriminatory assuming the exact same tax is charged at a retail store in the same location as the purchaser.
If I understand correctly, the question is asking about how to write the tax code so that sales taxes cannot be charged at all in order to stimulate the economy or some other nonsense. This may have made sense back in the dotcom boom, but now it's just a way of playing the the people's hatred of tax in any form. After all, states that charge sales tax also charge use tax on catalog/internet purchases that are tax free due to the business's lack of nexus. Enforcing the use tax on individuals is tricky, but I can guarantee yout that business owners are in for a rude awakening during an audit if they assume the state will let collectable use taxes slide.
PC Mag: What is your position on taxing Internet sales and service?
Kerry: I was an original cosponsor of the Internet Tax Freedom Act. This legislation, which was passed in 1998, placed a moratorium on Internet access taxes and "multiple or discriminatory" taxes on electronic commerce. I support Senate legislation (the Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act) that would extend this moratorium.
Bush: (I couldn't find a specific comment on Internet sales taxes.)
I have to assume Kerry did not really answer the question asked about sales taxes on internet sales, not his answer regarding the tax on the access itself. If you let Kerry get away with this answer, then you have to credit Bush's "interview" for the following answer only two questions prior...
Do Not Tax Broadband Access. The federal ban on Internet-access taxes has expired - and some states have started taxing broadband access. The president supports banning Internet-access taxes and applying that ban to all forms of broadband access. The Congress needs to pass the Internet-access tax ban.
You'd think PC Mag would be able to tell the difference between sales taxes on internet sales and taxes on internet access.
All that being said, there is no way I would ever vote for Bush's reelection. If someone wants to vote for Bush based on faith and/or moral issues, there is no chance of changing that voter's mind.
"This goal, however doesn't mean that each policy initiative should be directly tied to its source of funding..."
Unfortunately, this IS the way it works. If it wasn't, the policy initiatives would be worthless. They would still argue about the funding after singing kumbaya during the 435-0, 100-0 vote on the fact that it should be funded. Otherwise, what would they do? Spend the money until it runs out near the end of the fiscal year and just say, "Oops!" when the money is all spent? "Sorry we can't continue funding for *anything* the next couple months. Try again later!"
Yes, I know that "resolutions" are passed all the time that are simply a way of guilting others into supporting your general viewpoint (We Support Our Troops comes to mind), but these are also worthless.
Don't get me wrong, I despise the partisan games that are played (you fund my bill, I'll fund yours), but think of the gridlock if there were no compromises at all. It's all grandstanding and a negotiation tactic to make the other side think you are giving up something so significant that you expect something significant in return.
Oh, God. I can't believe I just made an argument for gridlock in Congress.
Thanks, fizban. I couldn't finish reading the writer's analysis due to a migraine from all the extra crap in there. Now I know it was due to the high PBQ. That and the fact that the data set was two.
I am going to submit a claim for workers' comp and maybe go home early.
A bank credited me US$8000 for a credit line payment made by someone else to the wrong account (mine).
I figured out the problem and knew that some poor bastard was wondering where his $8000 went. I figured that the bank would eventually figure out the problem, so I told them.
Two days later they took back the $8000. Another day later they put in a debit of $8000 for a "cash advance." It took me three months, at least 12 hours on the phone, and letters to the Attorney General to get that straightened out. Of course I was being charged interest the entire time.
Next time I keep it and close the account immediately.
But, after a bit of public uproar about the extremely high fat content, they switched to vegetable oil.
Hopefully they will soon be switching to triglycerides to get rid of the fat content once and for all!;)
But seriously, I know you meant to say they switched because of the higher saturated fat content. I don't recall for sure, but I thought McD switched away from beef fat because the fries were not kosher/vegetarian. A lot of US movie theaters switched from saturated fats like coconut to others about 5 years ago IIRC.
Your first, second, and fourth paragraphs sound great. I totally agree. But then you go off the deep end with the third...
Another thought. I've seen new parents who carry camcorders with them everywhere. They stuff it into the kids diaper bag. Are we going to send them to prison because they forgot to take the camera out of the bag and leave it in the car?
You are being silly. If the parent doesn't pull out the camera to take pictures during the movie, then no arrest. If the parent decides to record the movie that little Patrick is watching, then an arrest is justified.
Or maybe you were thinking that the metal detectors at the theater would find the camera and then that would be grounds for an arrest? Good luck proving intent on that one. I think that arresting people with "photographic memories" would make as much sense logically as your devil's advocate suggestion. Yes, this is Slashdot. Yes, we are here to talk about opposing viewpoints and discuss. However, we need to keep logic within reach. Ok, sorry about that last part. Not a personal attack. My day hasn't been stellar.
"Essentially, what TJC would have you believe is that... if they do it on legislative letterhead during working hours, there's something wrong with that, even though the substantive effect on the Dixie Chicks (and everyone else inside and outside of South Carolina) is exactly the same in both cases - there is no effect, either way."
I disagree. There would have been no media coverage on this issue had O'Malley's Pub been the location of this resolution. By doing the deed on government letterhead and during government working hours, they are publically declaring their votes as representing those of the people of South Carolina.
TJC is basically reduced to arguing that such things are wrong because some imaginary person might hypothetically find such non-binding expressions of an opinion to be somehow scary."
I wouldn't pretend to be "scared," but I do think that resolutions like this tend to waste "valuable legislative time" time and create animosity towards others for other reason than to grandstand for the voting public. IMHO, they are pandering for future votes. Wasn't there a city council in Utah that passed a resolution so as to not recognize the authority of the United Nations and not allow its troops to be stationed there?
As far as "First Amendment Rights" and other Constitutional phrases, I will post the following from the TJC website...
Jefferson Muzzles are awarded as a means to draw national attention to abridgments of free speech and press and, at the same time, foster an appreciation for those tenets of the First Amendment. Because the importance and value of free expression extend far beyond the First Amendment's limit on government censorship, acts of private censorship are not spared consideration for the dubious honor of receiving a Muzzle."
If I read this correctly for these awards, TJC is not interested in censorship that may or may not be "unonstitutional," but just point out extreme censorship in whatever form, wherever it may occur. Dixie Chicks/SC certainly qualifies as attempted censorship or at least a punishment against future censorship.
"imprimatur" - I had to look that one up when I read the article. I agree that its use is over the top if the resolution is not actually a law. However, the resolution is still "official."
Excellent. Let's put some teeth in it and round up anyone found outside of zoo grounds on Tuesday;)
I forgot to specify a location and make exceptions for those that cannot travel on Tuesdays due to religious reasons. Because I am in recess until August (summer break), and I don't want to call a special session and pay overtime to, uh, me, this measure will just have to do as is.
Correct. I should have said resolution, not law. In this case, to the Chicks, it was still mean-spirited and aimed directly at them. No one could enforce such a resolution.
It's just the legislators expressing their own opinions, which presumably the Thomas Jefferson Center would (grudgingly) allow that they are permitted to do.
Actually, the Thomas Jefferson Center commented on this too...
While South Carolina officials have the right to publicly criticize Maines for her comments, such criticism must be made in their capacity as private citizens and not with the power of government office behind it. Otherwise, those in power could effectively squelch any criticism of government through the use of an imprimatur that "officially" declares what speech is patriotic and what speech is anti-American.>
BTW, on a 1-0 vote, I have declared next Tuesday as "Let's All Go To The Zoo" day. Congratulations on your successful lobbying effort.
I have to agree about celebs thinking they are more important than others. But I'm sure you aren't criticizing the Dixie Chicks for speaking at all. I'm sure you Read The F***ing;-) Article about the Dixie Chicks/South Carolina. I'll repost the important part.
Just one week after Maines' statement, South Carolina State Representative Catherine Ceips introduced a House Resolution calling upon the Dixie Chicks to publicly apologize for the statement and perform a free concert for American troops stationed in South Carolina when the group began a tour in Greenville, South Carolina on May 1st. The Resolution called the comments "unpatriotic," "unnecessary," and "anti-American." The measure passed the House on a 50-35 vote.
They deserved all the criticism and praise they got for the speech against Bush. They did not deserve a law enacted to specifically force them to apologize and give a free concert. I'll cut them some slack for feeling persecuted when this type of crap happens.
Don't worry... If she timed everything right you'll probably have to move the furniture in 2-3 months so you can repaint/wallpaper the entire room... with a border... or wood moulding... or arrrrrrghhhh.
Slashdot Mirror
13. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (62%)
14. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (37%)
15. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (29%)
...
I would not vote for Badnarik, given the chance. However, it's him after Brown and LaRouche? Am I that much of a wacko? (Yes, I left the candidate filtering off)
...a high powered hoser.
Oh, c'mon. A perfect setup. Let's get some +5 Funny replies here people!
Anyway, my original point was that PC Mag unfairly dissed Bush when he "answered" the question. His position on the issue was quite clear from the question two prior to that one we are discussing. His position is the same as Kerry's. And neither said anything relevant about sales taxes on goods purchased over the internet (which is what I inferred the question's "internet sales and service" to mean). One could argue that the phrase really means "the sale of internet access" although I doubt PC Mag meant that.
I agree that IFTA was important and it should have cleared up the potential multiple tax problem. However, if the law were to go away, would the new tax situation still be unclear? I cannot imagine that sales tax would be charged any differently than what would exist assuming a business nexus blah, blah, blah, as it currently does. Prior to IFTA, I cannot recall a business trying to charge sales tax on internet goods based on its own physical location without regards to the buyer's location.
I'm off to work! Ciao!
I know exactly what you are saying. You are saying that you are in the 'too lame to be in the "in crowd"' crowd.
I thought that attending university where no one knew me would allow me to "start over" and start at a 10 of 10 on the cool scale. Little did I know that my previous school records would be transferred to every student in my dormitory so that they would know I was actually only a 3.6. When teachers say that your actions at school will "go on your permanent record" they really do mean it!
In my xx years of purchases over the internet, I have never been charged more sales tax than would have otherwise been charged at a physical store in my location. If this was to happen, I would think that there are already laws in place to allow the refund claim of such taxes.
This all started when internet purchases were new and everyone (incorrectly) got a free ride for a while. Now that states are catching on to the fact that revenue is being lost in significant amounts, they are simply trying to collect what was already taxed (in some fashion or another) under prior law. It was simply a matter of lack of enforcement.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love a law banning sales taxes on internet purchases. With virtually every state in financial crisis, I don't see that happening.
Why? Charging sales tax on a purchase over the internet (harmonized with state/local tax law) is neither multiple nor discriminatory assuming the exact same tax is charged at a retail store in the same location as the purchaser.
If I understand correctly, the question is asking about how to write the tax code so that sales taxes cannot be charged at all in order to stimulate the economy or some other nonsense. This may have made sense back in the dotcom boom, but now it's just a way of playing the the people's hatred of tax in any form. After all, states that charge sales tax also charge use tax on catalog/internet purchases that are tax free due to the business's lack of nexus. Enforcing the use tax on individuals is tricky, but I can guarantee yout that business owners are in for a rude awakening during an audit if they assume the state will let collectable use taxes slide.
Kerry: I was an original cosponsor of the Internet Tax Freedom Act. This legislation, which was passed in 1998, placed a moratorium on Internet access taxes and "multiple or discriminatory" taxes on electronic commerce. I support Senate legislation (the Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act) that would extend this moratorium.
Bush: (I couldn't find a specific comment on Internet sales taxes.)
I have to assume Kerry did not really answer the question asked about sales taxes on internet sales, not his answer regarding the tax on the access itself. If you let Kerry get away with this answer, then you have to credit Bush's "interview" for the following answer only two questions prior...
Do Not Tax Broadband Access. The federal ban on Internet-access taxes has expired - and some states have started taxing broadband access. The president supports banning Internet-access taxes and applying that ban to all forms of broadband access. The Congress needs to pass the Internet-access tax ban.
You'd think PC Mag would be able to tell the difference between sales taxes on internet sales and taxes on internet access.
All that being said, there is no way I would ever vote for Bush's reelection. If someone wants to vote for Bush based on faith and/or moral issues, there is no chance of changing that voter's mind.
I thought we were discussing Star Wars, not Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Or maybe the AC is not yet a teenager? Or maybe the AC attended Francis C. Grade University?
Replying against my sig... oh well.
A: Cowboy Neal, Hemos, and the Pope...
Q: Who are three people who have never been in my kitchen?
Unfortunately, this IS the way it works. If it wasn't, the policy initiatives would be worthless. They would still argue about the funding after singing kumbaya during the 435-0, 100-0 vote on the fact that it should be funded. Otherwise, what would they do? Spend the money until it runs out near the end of the fiscal year and just say, "Oops!" when the money is all spent? "Sorry we can't continue funding for *anything* the next couple months. Try again later!"
Yes, I know that "resolutions" are passed all the time that are simply a way of guilting others into supporting your general viewpoint (We Support Our Troops comes to mind), but these are also worthless.
Don't get me wrong, I despise the partisan games that are played (you fund my bill, I'll fund yours), but think of the gridlock if there were no compromises at all. It's all grandstanding and a negotiation tactic to make the other side think you are giving up something so significant that you expect something significant in return.
Oh, God. I can't believe I just made an argument for gridlock in Congress.
At that point you might as well spend $84.25 and get the gallon of Sprite. It's only a quarter more!!! And such a good deal!!!;-)
Daleks created by an intelligent being versus evolving due to their surroundings... a debate that sounds oddly familiar.
Thanks, fizban. I couldn't finish reading the writer's analysis due to a migraine from all the extra crap in there. Now I know it was due to the high PBQ. That and the fact that the data set was two.
I am going to submit a claim for workers' comp and maybe go home early.
A bank credited me US$8000 for a credit line payment made by someone else to the wrong account (mine).
I figured out the problem and knew that some poor bastard was wondering where his $8000 went. I figured that the bank would eventually figure out the problem, so I told them.
Two days later they took back the $8000. Another day later they put in a debit of $8000 for a "cash advance." It took me three months, at least 12 hours on the phone, and letters to the Attorney General to get that straightened out. Of course I was being charged interest the entire time.
Next time I keep it and close the account immediately.
Hopefully they will soon be switching to triglycerides to get rid of the fat content once and for all! ;)
But seriously, I know you meant to say they switched because of the higher saturated fat content. I don't recall for sure, but I thought McD switched away from beef fat because the fries were not kosher/vegetarian. A lot of US movie theaters switched from saturated fats like coconut to others about 5 years ago IIRC.
Because cafal cares very little about it.
You now owe me 5 mL Mountain Dew and two KleenWipes to replace the ones I used to clean my monitor.
I appreciate the other review. And the Google cache shows me the images just fine, thankyouverymuch.
The trial began 7 weeks ago. It was filed a looooooooong time ago and took until now for the fun to begin.
Another thought. I've seen new parents who carry camcorders with them everywhere. They stuff it into the kids diaper bag. Are we going to send them to prison because they forgot to take the camera out of the bag and leave it in the car?
You are being silly. If the parent doesn't pull out the camera to take pictures during the movie, then no arrest. If the parent decides to record the movie that little Patrick is watching, then an arrest is justified.
Or maybe you were thinking that the metal detectors at the theater would find the camera and then that would be grounds for an arrest? Good luck proving intent on that one. I think that arresting people with "photographic memories" would make as much sense logically as your devil's advocate suggestion. Yes, this is Slashdot. Yes, we are here to talk about opposing viewpoints and discuss. However, we need to keep logic within reach. Ok, sorry about that last part. Not a personal attack. My day hasn't been stellar.
I disagree. There would have been no media coverage on this issue had O'Malley's Pub been the location of this resolution. By doing the deed on government letterhead and during government working hours, they are publically declaring their votes as representing those of the people of South Carolina.
TJC is basically reduced to arguing that such things are wrong because some imaginary person might hypothetically find such non-binding expressions of an opinion to be somehow scary."
I wouldn't pretend to be "scared," but I do think that resolutions like this tend to waste "valuable legislative time" time and create animosity towards others for other reason than to grandstand for the voting public. IMHO, they are pandering for future votes. Wasn't there a city council in Utah that passed a resolution so as to not recognize the authority of the United Nations and not allow its troops to be stationed there?
As far as "First Amendment Rights" and other Constitutional phrases, I will post the following from the TJC website...
If I read this correctly for these awards, TJC is not interested in censorship that may or may not be "unonstitutional," but just point out extreme censorship in whatever form, wherever it may occur. Dixie Chicks/SC certainly qualifies as attempted censorship or at least a punishment against future censorship.
"imprimatur" - I had to look that one up when I read the article. I agree that its use is over the top if the resolution is not actually a law. However, the resolution is still "official."
Excellent. Let's put some teeth in it and round up anyone found outside of zoo grounds on Tuesday ;)
I forgot to specify a location and make exceptions for those that cannot travel on Tuesdays due to religious reasons. Because I am in recess until August (summer break), and I don't want to call a special session and pay overtime to, uh, me, this measure will just have to do as is.
It's just the legislators expressing their own opinions, which presumably the Thomas Jefferson Center would (grudgingly) allow that they are permitted to do.
Actually, the Thomas Jefferson Center commented on this too...
BTW, on a 1-0 vote, I have declared next Tuesday as "Let's All Go To The Zoo" day. Congratulations on your successful lobbying effort.
Just one week after Maines' statement, South Carolina State Representative Catherine Ceips introduced a House Resolution calling upon the Dixie Chicks to publicly apologize for the statement and perform a free concert for American troops stationed in South Carolina when the group began a tour in Greenville, South Carolina on May 1st. The Resolution called the comments "unpatriotic," "unnecessary," and "anti-American." The measure passed the House on a 50-35 vote.
They deserved all the criticism and praise they got for the speech against Bush. They did not deserve a law enacted to specifically force them to apologize and give a free concert. I'll cut them some slack for feeling persecuted when this type of crap happens.
Don't worry... If she timed everything right you'll probably have to move the furniture in 2-3 months so you can repaint/wallpaper the entire room... with a border... or wood moulding... or arrrrrrghhhh.