I guess I should explain this better. Let's say you have a $100,000/year salary. The first ~$40,000 is not yours. It belongs to the government and while you are earning that first $40K you are a slave to Uncle Sam.
Rights don't come from the Man in the Sky. Rights come from being human beings. Like instincts. They are a natural consequence of man's desire to be liberated.
However when you rob your neighbors wallets to buy some poor person a car, or house, or internet, then you've infringed upon your neighbors' freedoms (theft of labor). Nobody has a right to harm another in this fashion.
Even if the taxes were raised to 100%? You're still not a slave? (Just something to think about.)
What about the concept of partial slavery? The typical American pays ~40% in total taxes. So in essence you're a slave the first ~40% of the year (upto May 10) and don't achieve total freedom from taxation until after.
Yep the Spanish constitution is wrong. So too is the U.S. constitution when it discusses copy "rights".
These are not inalienable, instinctive, natural rights. They are temporary government-granted privileges of monopoly, typically at the expense of your neighbors who are footing the bill (either directly or indirectly).
I only have 0.7 Mbit/sec. I don't consider my rights to have been violated. High-speed access is a *luxury* not a right, same as having an Honda Acura instead of a cheap Honda econocar is a luxury not a right.
Yesterday I heard people saying it's okay for President Obama to block FOX's access to the white house press pool. They said "FOX has a right to freedom of the press. They don't have the right to access." Couldn't the same argument be made about internet? You have the right to buy any product you want, but that doesn't mean you have a right to broadband access. Everyone already had dialup access. Thoughts? Objections?
(No this is not a troll. This is the Socratic method (asking questions; making people think).)
>>>They decided that anyone who wants to sell inside their borders has to perform this paper work. IF you don't want to do the work, then don't make the sale. >>>
You forgot the other option - just ignore New York's demands for taxes from my pocket. I am no more subject to NY's Laws than I am subject to Canada's laws or the UK's laws. They have *no* juris diction here in Virginia.
>>>You can always charge an administration fee to New Yorkers if you want to.
Not according to Ebay or Amazon's rules. No I cannot.
>>>Why should you be subject to the hassle? Because that's the price the state sets for doing business with them or their citizens
If New York State wants to block us Ebayers from selling our used games, videos, whatever from crossing the NY Border, I'm okay with that. But to require us file annual sales tax returns? How is New York going to enforce this tax on us? Is the NY Militia going to cross three states (PA, MD, and VA) in order to come arrest me? That's called invasion.
I suppose New York could ask Congress to arrest me, but I can not lay my hand on any part of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress power to enforce NY Law inside Virginia territory. Can you?
And finally taxation of a person who has no representation in the NY Legislature is non-democratic. If I think New York's 8% sales tax is an onerous burden upon my business (i.e. excessive paperwork and reduced sales), there is no way for me to protest it. I quite literally have no voice in New York's government.
And again I'm labeled a troll. Don't you people get it? Once the *precedent* of making Amazon collect taxes outside California (their home), then the law can be expanded to include private users selling items on Ebay. You want to sell your used Playstation or Xbox videogame? And some guy in Florida buys it? Then YOU have to go through the hassle of figuring-out how how much sales tax to charge the guy (and it varies from county-to-county).
Now maybe for one videogame it's no big deal, but what if you sold 100 games on Ebay? Trying to figure-out the tax on 100 different locations (plus filing the 100 taxation forms) would be a major pain in the assets.
Thanks. I can't believe all the people on this forum who think it's okay to be taxed by A STATE WHERE YOU DO NOT LIVE. What's next? Am I supposed to collect and pay a Sales tax to France or Germany when their citizens buy my Ebay or Amazon goods???
(1) No. (2) Even if I was a smuggler, States can't collect tariffs per the U.S. Constitution.
(3) My refusal to pay New York taxes is no different than refusing to pay Canada's tax or the UK's VAT. Foreigners are not subject to taxation unless they set foot inside the foreign government's border (which I have not done). I'm living 300 miles away from New York and not a NY subject
First off, why was I labeled "troll"? Second, you are correct that I'm not losing money but I AM losing time trying to fill out New York tax forms (plus accounting for +/- 1/2% variances across different counties). Why should I be subject to this hassle? I am not a citizen of New York. I am not subject to comply with their laws - I'm in Virginia ~300 miles away.
Let New York collect the money from their own citizen (the buyer) not from a foreigner.
>>>The best case would be to just have a national sales tax
And thus State governments would lose a major source of funding. It would be equivalent to if the EU told Germany, France, and UK "you are no longer allowed to collect VAT; we will institute a Europe-wide sales tax". How would the member states fund themselves?
>>>If it's an "undue burden" to them then they should just sell in their home states.
Okay how about this then: "No Taxation Without Representation". How's that for an argument. I sell a lot of stuff on both Ebay and Amazon (used games, videos, et cetera that I no longer want), and New York State has the gull to tell me I should collect taxes when I sell items to New Yorkers. And then file a tax form with NY and pay the money due. I say:
I am not a New York citizen and not subject to New York laws.
If New York wants to give me and the other ~250 million non-NY Americans representation in their Legislature, then okay tax us. But until that happens, we shall consider ourselves foreigners. We owe neither allegiance nor taxes to any foreign government.
How's that for an argument. I sell a lot of stuff on Ebay (used games, videos, et cetera that I no longer want), and New York State has the gull to tell me I should collect taxes when I sell items to New Yorkers. And then file a tax form with NY and pay the money due. I say:
"No Taxation Without Representation"
I am not a New York citizen and never plan to be. If New York wants to give me and the other ~250 million non-NY Americans representation in their Legislature, then okay tax us. But until that happens, we shall consider ourselves foreigners. We owe neither allegiance nor taxes to any foreign government. The New York Legislature can go get fucked.
So do most people when people say things like - I have hospital bills and my neighbors should pay them. It's my right to take their money. - What a sweeping, generalized statement to make, and I see in on television many times per day.
>>>many can see that the single-payer system of healthcare is far more efficient than giant corporations
By that reasoning everything should be provided by a single payer. Government-made cars (Tribant), government-made trains (amtrak), government-provided housing (Fannie and Freddie), government-provided ________. Everything would be "more efficient" if the government just provided it.
Of course that would also mean a loss of freedom of choice. Government monopoly == no choice. It also means my money is no longer my money; I'm forced to pay for other people's lung replacements, train tickets, homes, or new cars.
The Supreme Court serves the interest of the government in DC.
It does not serve the interests of the 50 State Legislatures. The U.S. Constitution is a contract between two parties - the central government and the states, just the same as the Lisbon Treaty is a contract between the EU and the Member States. As parties to the contract the States certainly have a right to decide if the contract has been violated, and stop that violation in its tracks. Hence the need for a Constitutional Council whose members are selected by the States.
Furthermore to say the U.S. Court should police the U.S. Congress makes about as much sense as saying Microsoft's HR should police Microsoft's Board of Directors. You can't have an organization police itself. You need to have a separate organization.
When ABC, CBS, CNN heard that FOX was no longer allowed to be part of the press pool, they all decided not to participate. They drew a line in the sand and told the Administration straight up, "Either we all participate, or none of us will cover you." The administration, realizing they need television coverage, agreed to those terms.
The nets are not dumb. They know if FOX is excluded, then next time it might be ABC or CNN who gets excluded.
The difference is Glenn Beck has video evidence of Van Joanes saying he's communist, or Anita Dunn saying her favorite philosopher is Dictator Mao, or Obama telling SEIU (in 2004) that he wants to see government take-over health care completely.
Do you have any video evidence of Beck raping a girl?
Furthermore, what the hell is wrong with asking questions? As the Founder of the Demcoratic Party said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." What he said of God also applies to our leaders. Question boldly. This is OUR government and our right as a free people. What surprises me is that Beck seems to be the only one on TV doing it.
Here's a link to MSNBC calling a *black* rifle-carrying man a "white racist". Wow. Deliberate tampering of video like that shows a clear agenda. BTW I agree with my black brother. "Stealing" is the best way to describe making your neighbors pay for YOUR desire to buy new things.
>>>Interesting that only Fox claims that they were excluded from interviewing a politician.
How can you say that? No really, I'd like to know. I provided not one, not two, but THREE links to non-fox Networks about the white house decision to exclude FOX, and that they thought it was unfair, and yet you still make that ridiculous statement. How do you do that with a straight face?
Personally I'm happy FOX exists..........and what I'd like to see next if the Libertarian News Network, and maybe a Communist News Network, because we need ALL points of view on television, not just the pro-big-government view that has dominated since the 1950s.
>>>I guess all of the other networks didn't attribute the omission to malice either
They all reported on it. ABC, CBS, and CNN all talked about the White House's decision to exclude FOX, and that they told the White House, "Either FOX is included in the interview, or we're not participating." I don't know if NBC reacted or not. Don't remember.
>>>Fox Entertainment News.
Well I'm glad I'm talking to a non-biased person. I guess you're too busy listening to DNC-NBC.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I should explain this better. Let's say you have a $100,000/year salary. The first ~$40,000 is not yours. It belongs to the government and while you are earning that first $40K you are a slave to Uncle Sam.
Rights don't come from the Man in the Sky. Rights come from being human beings. Like instincts. They are a natural consequence of man's desire to be liberated.
However when you rob your neighbors wallets to buy some poor person a car, or house, or internet, then you've infringed upon your neighbors' freedoms (theft of labor). Nobody has a right to harm another in this fashion.
Even if the taxes were raised to 100%? You're still not a slave? (Just something to think about.)
What about the concept of partial slavery? The typical American pays ~40% in total taxes. So in essence you're a slave the first ~40% of the year (upto May 10) and don't achieve total freedom from taxation until after.
Yep the Spanish constitution is wrong. So too is the U.S. constitution when it discusses copy "rights".
These are not inalienable, instinctive, natural rights. They are temporary government-granted privileges of monopoly, typically at the expense of your neighbors who are footing the bill (either directly or indirectly).
I only have 0.7 Mbit/sec. I don't consider my rights to have been violated. High-speed access is a *luxury* not a right, same as having an Honda Acura instead of a cheap Honda econocar is a luxury not a right.
Yesterday I heard people saying it's okay for President Obama to block FOX's access to the white house press pool. They said "FOX has a right to freedom of the press. They don't have the right to access." Couldn't the same argument be made about internet? You have the right to buy any product you want, but that doesn't mean you have a right to broadband access. Everyone already had dialup access. Thoughts? Objections?
(No this is not a troll. This is the Socratic method (asking questions; making people think).)
>>>They decided that anyone who wants to sell inside their borders has to perform this paper work. IF you don't want to do the work, then don't make the sale.
>>>
You forgot the other option - just ignore New York's demands for taxes from my pocket. I am no more subject to NY's Laws than I am subject to Canada's laws or the UK's laws. They have *no* juris diction here in Virginia.
>>>You can always charge an administration fee to New Yorkers if you want to.
Not according to Ebay or Amazon's rules. No I cannot.
>>>Why should you be subject to the hassle? Because that's the price the state sets for doing business with them or their citizens
If New York State wants to block us Ebayers from selling our used games, videos, whatever from crossing the NY Border, I'm okay with that. But to require us file annual sales tax returns? How is New York going to enforce this tax on us? Is the NY Militia going to cross three states (PA, MD, and VA) in order to come arrest me? That's called invasion.
I suppose New York could ask Congress to arrest me, but I can not lay my hand on any part of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress power to enforce NY Law inside Virginia territory. Can you?
And finally taxation of a person who has no representation in the NY Legislature is non-democratic. If I think New York's 8% sales tax is an onerous burden upon my business (i.e. excessive paperwork and reduced sales), there is no way for me to protest it. I quite literally have no voice in New York's government.
(Score:-1, Troll)
And again I'm labeled a troll. Don't you people get it? Once the *precedent* of making Amazon collect taxes outside California (their home), then the law can be expanded to include private users selling items on Ebay. You want to sell your used Playstation or Xbox videogame? And some guy in Florida buys it? Then YOU have to go through the hassle of figuring-out how how much sales tax to charge the guy (and it varies from county-to-county).
Now maybe for one videogame it's no big deal, but what if you sold 100 games on Ebay? Trying to figure-out the tax on 100 different locations (plus filing the 100 taxation forms) would be a major pain in the assets.
>>>Someone please mod the parent up!
(Score:-1, Troll). They didn't listen to you.
(Score:-1, Troll)
Thanks. I can't believe all the people on this forum who think it's okay to be taxed by A STATE WHERE YOU DO NOT LIVE. What's next? Am I supposed to collect and pay a Sales tax to France or Germany when their citizens buy my Ebay or Amazon goods???
(1) No. (2) Even if I was a smuggler, States can't collect tariffs per the U.S. Constitution.
(3) My refusal to pay New York taxes is no different than refusing to pay Canada's tax or the UK's VAT. Foreigners are not subject to taxation unless they set foot inside the foreign government's border (which I have not done). I'm living 300 miles away from New York and not a NY subject
First off, why was I labeled "troll"? Second, you are correct that I'm not losing money but I AM losing time trying to fill out New York tax forms (plus accounting for +/- 1/2% variances across different counties). Why should I be subject to this hassle? I am not a citizen of New York. I am not subject to comply with their laws - I'm in Virginia ~300 miles away.
Let New York collect the money from their own citizen (the buyer) not from a foreigner.
>>>The best case would be to just have a national sales tax
And thus State governments would lose a major source of funding. It would be equivalent to if the EU told Germany, France, and UK "you are no longer allowed to collect VAT; we will institute a Europe-wide sales tax". How would the member states fund themselves?
>>>If it's an "undue burden" to them then they should just sell in their home states.
Okay how about this then: "No Taxation Without Representation". How's that for an argument. I sell a lot of stuff on both Ebay and Amazon (used games, videos, et cetera that I no longer want), and New York State has the gull to tell me I should collect taxes when I sell items to New Yorkers. And then file a tax form with NY and pay the money due. I say:
I am not a New York citizen and not subject to New York laws.
If New York wants to give me and the other ~250 million non-NY Americans representation in their Legislature, then okay tax us. But until that happens, we shall consider ourselves foreigners. We owe neither allegiance nor taxes to any foreign government.
Ahem.
The IRS has *nothing* to do with Use Taxes. That's your local Member State that collects use tax, not the central government.
How's that for an argument. I sell a lot of stuff on Ebay (used games, videos, et cetera that I no longer want), and New York State has the gull to tell me I should collect taxes when I sell items to New Yorkers. And then file a tax form with NY and pay the money due. I say:
"No Taxation Without Representation"
I am not a New York citizen and never plan to be. If New York wants to give me and the other ~250 million non-NY Americans representation in their Legislature, then okay tax us. But until that happens, we shall consider ourselves foreigners. We owe neither allegiance nor taxes to any foreign government. The New York Legislature can go get fucked.
>>>You use such sweeping generalizations.
So do most people when people say things like - I have hospital bills and my neighbors should pay them. It's my right to take their money. - What a sweeping, generalized statement to make, and I see in on television many times per day.
>>>many can see that the single-payer system of healthcare is far more efficient than giant corporations
By that reasoning everything should be provided by a single payer. Government-made cars (Tribant), government-made trains (amtrak), government-provided housing (Fannie and Freddie), government-provided ________. Everything would be "more efficient" if the government just provided it.
Of course that would also mean a loss of freedom of choice. Government monopoly == no choice. It also means my money is no longer my money; I'm forced to pay for other people's lung replacements, train tickets, homes, or new cars.
I am anti-monopoly; completely and totally.
The Supreme Court serves the interest of the government in DC.
It does not serve the interests of the 50 State Legislatures. The U.S. Constitution is a contract between two parties - the central government and the states, just the same as the Lisbon Treaty is a contract between the EU and the Member States. As parties to the contract the States certainly have a right to decide if the contract has been violated, and stop that violation in its tracks. Hence the need for a Constitutional Council whose members are selected by the States.
Furthermore to say the U.S. Court should police the U.S. Congress makes about as much sense as saying Microsoft's HR should police Microsoft's Board of Directors. You can't have an organization police itself. You need to have a separate organization.
Well the networks disagree.
When ABC, CBS, CNN heard that FOX was no longer allowed to be part of the press pool, they all decided not to participate. They drew a line in the sand and told the Administration straight up, "Either we all participate, or none of us will cover you." The administration, realizing they need television coverage, agreed to those terms.
The nets are not dumb. They know if FOX is excluded, then next time it might be ABC or CNN who gets excluded.
>>>You are stupid
Wow.
That was a persuasive argument. I am now in full agreement with thee, due to being overwhelmed by thy impeccable reasoning skills.
The difference is Glenn Beck has video evidence of Van Joanes saying he's communist, or Anita Dunn saying her favorite philosopher is Dictator Mao, or Obama telling SEIU (in 2004) that he wants to see government take-over health care completely.
Do you have any video evidence of Beck raping a girl?
Furthermore, what the hell is wrong with asking questions? As the Founder of the Demcoratic Party said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." What he said of God also applies to our leaders. Question boldly. This is OUR government and our right as a free people. What surprises me is that Beck seems to be the only one on TV doing it.
BTW:
Here's a link to MSNBC calling a *black* rifle-carrying man a "white racist". Wow. Deliberate tampering of video like that shows a clear agenda. BTW I agree with my black brother. "Stealing" is the best way to describe making your neighbors pay for YOUR desire to buy new things.
Edited http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI (notice they cut off the guy's head so you can't see he's black)
Whole unedited video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7syx26QtQIM
>>>Interesting that only Fox claims that they were excluded from interviewing a politician.
How can you say that? No really, I'd like to know. I provided not one, not two, but THREE links to non-fox Networks about the white house decision to exclude FOX, and that they thought it was unfair, and yet you still make that ridiculous statement. How do you do that with a straight face?
Personally I'm happy FOX exists..... .....and what I'd like to see next if the Libertarian News Network, and maybe a Communist News Network, because we need ALL points of view on television, not just the pro-big-government view that has dominated since the 1950s.
>>>I guess all of the other networks didn't attribute the omission to malice either
They all reported on it. ABC, CBS, and CNN all talked about the White House's decision to exclude FOX, and that they told the White House, "Either FOX is included in the interview, or we're not participating." I don't know if NBC reacted or not. Don't remember.
>>>Fox Entertainment News.
Well I'm glad I'm talking to a non-biased person. I guess you're too busy listening to DNC-NBC. ;-)