Higher taxes mean less spending power. That equates to a reduction in purchasing, thus a reduction in revenues.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the elasticity of the demand curve. For example, if a $100 item is taxed at 5%, increasing the tax to 10% causes a 5% reduction in sales, and there were 1 million purchases at 5%, let's look at the numbers. Original revenue was 1,000,000*$5=$5 million. New revenue is 1,000,000*(0.95)*$10=$9.5 million. So it depends on the elasticity of the demand curve, as anyone who has taken Economics 101 would know.
Just a personal observation, you sound rather socialist in attitude. Feel the same about personal rights, such as the 2nd, 1st and 4th admendment?
How am I socialist in attitude? I never stated whether or not the government should increase taxes, I merely stated that if they did increase taxes, they would probably increase revenues. Actually, I didn't even say that, because this isn't a tax increase, it is merely a change in the enforcement mechanisms which hinders criminals from committing tax evasion.
There is obviously a point where it does not apply
I would argue that we are below that point already.
I was speaking of principles, not the actual number value for the ceiling, or floor of functional rates.
If you're going to speak of principles, then you should mention that raising taxes may raise revenue, or it may lower revenue, and you have no idea which it would do. Alternatively, point to an economic study showing that this particular tax enforcement strategy would lower revenues.
I think this will just drive more people away from online business, sink a sector of the economy and drive prices up for the consumer (which means they'll probably spend less, which is a Bad Thing, especially when you're in a recession).
On the other hand, it might provide incentive to online businesses to open up retail locations where people can pick up their items. The decreased shipping costs will then drive prices down for the consumer, which means they'll probably spend more, which is a Good Thing, especially when you're in a recession. The increased revenues can then be used to lower the sales tax even further. So instead of having honest people pay taxes and criminals avoid taxes, you get everyone to pay, at a lower rate.
With the reduced number of trucks on the road you'll see fewer traffic jams, less need to build new roads (which means more lowered taxes). About the only loser will be the mail order shipping industry, which is probably that "sector of the economy" you were talking about sinking...
Let's face it, making internet purchases has its plusses and its minuses. Sure, you don't have as much brick and mortar, but you have shipping costs. So why don't huge companies like Amazon simply open up distribution sites in every state? Even better they could open up pick-up locations and offer completely free shipping...
The reason they don't do this. The only reason, is because if they open up a pick-up site in my state, New Jersey, they'd have to pay sales tax every time someone from New Jersey buys a book. So instead they open up a huge warehouse in Deleware, and have New Jerseyites pay shipping instead of sales tax.
Makes it sound pretty damn inefficient, doesn't it? In fact, if you're at all an environmentalist, you should be strongly in favor of the states succeeding in passing these laws. If you don't like sales tax, move to a state that doesn't have it. Don't steal from the government by committing use tax evasion.
Even better (the constitution be damned), they could start setting up checkpoints at the state borders.
Umm, what's unconstitutional about setting up checkpoints at the state borders? It's not exactly cost effective, especially when you consider the value of the people's time who are being stopped, but unconstitutional?
Senators Wyden (D-Ore.) and Kyl (R-Ariz.) introduced the Global Internet Freedom Act earlier this month, setting aside $60 million over two years "to develop and deploy technologies to defeat Internet jamming and censorship."
$60 million huh? Sorry, that's not nearly enough to buy a law legalizing napster.
But the Supreme Court has ruled that states can't tax sales from electronic retailers that do not have a physical presence within their jurisdiction.
These sales are currently not able to be taxed by the states (assuming there is no physical presence in the state). Nothing illegal going on here.
Yeah, so they don't tax the sale, they tax the use (upon arrival in the state). It's no different, except that it's a lot harder to audit individuals than businesses. You're supposed to report your out-of-state purchases to the government (in those states with sales/use tax). If you don't you're breaking the law.
Granted, one cannot calculate out the total numbers, but it's likely that the revenues these states expect to gain from this additional taxation may not be at the levels they estimated, and we may be better off as a nation in a time of economic recovery to be stimulating the economy through these additional purchases.
It's likely that the revenues may not be at the levels they estimated? Which one is it, likely, or just possible?
In any case, if the states can do this constitutionally, then I'm all for it, because it's not about taxing something that wasn't taxed, it's about enforcing a tax that's already there. So the only people who will be affected are already criminals anyway.
Most state laws (following the CNBC coverage) seem to state that if you, the customer, go across state borders and make a purchase, and then bring it to the place where you reside, most state laws cover this and put it on the consumer as the responsible party to pay the tax
BTW, it's called "use tax", and at least in New Jersey you pay it at the same time as income tax, it's one of the lines on the form.
However, no state government I know enforce this, because it's near impossible and just plain stupid.
There are at least two times it is enforced though - upon the purchase of automobiles from out of state (they get you when you register), and upon large corporations for large purchases (they audit them).
I would now say I'm dependant on [the internet], for example I haven't picked up a phone book in years.
As an aside, I once had someone complain to me on IM for a half hour that they couldn't find the number for Sprint's technical support on the Sprint webpage. I finally got sick of listening to him, and sent him an IM with the phone number. He asked me where I found it, and I told him - the phone book. He looked down to notice that his foot was resting on a phone book the whole time.
So I guess it is safe to throw away your phone books, but only if you have me on your buddy list:).
Back to the on-topic discussion, yes, most people don't realize that they're being spied on. But ultimately the only real solution to the problem is education. If you think it's a big enough problem that it's worth solving, buy some ads pointing out the problems and sell consulting services fixing it. Personally I don't think it's a big enough deal to most people to bother, though. So what if your cable company knows what type of computers you're using to access the internet?
Let's actually discuss ways to resolve it for everyone, rather than trying to make ourselves look clever.
If indeed the contract demands the software to be installed (and it wasn't just the tech making that up to make his job easier), then the resolution is really simple, you get lots of angry customers to write to the regulatory authorities and force the company to change its contract.
So hire someone else to uninstall it (and perform a security analysis) and have them give you a receipt. Of course, you should only do this if you didn't sign a contract with Comcast allowing them to install the software.
Have a bogus bathroom for him to install his camera in, which you can leave "unused" 'til you need to call support when you can shit in that bathroom if needed.
More amusing would be sending him to your outhouse. Let him try to figure it out.:)
This is why I always opt for the self-install option with any ISP. I don't even like my wife watching me take a shit, nevermind some complete stranger. (Side note: Yes, she does have her own bathroom. So there.:P)
Take them to small claims court and sue them for the time you spent removing the cameras.
They use 802.11 to transmit their signal to the nearest spy truck. To find out exactly what they're doing hook up an 802.11 hub and analyse the traffic.
If you're going to use their product, then you have to play by their rules. Forget about the fact that the installation guy might not be following the rules, and that as a monopoly service they are highly regulated by the government. Just bend over (for the camera) and take it.
Tell them your policy does not allow anyone to install cameras in your house without passing an extensive personal background check, signing a non-disclosure agreement, and obtaining a million dollar bond payable to you upon breach of contract. Ask him for his personal address and phone number so that you can contact him when the background check is completed, and have him fill out a form giving you his social security number and permission to use it for the purposes of obtaining the background check.
The cable guy came over to install a cable modem at my Dad's house. As I watched him do his stuff I noticed he was installing miniature cameras in my Dad's bedroom and bathroom. I know you don't need cameras for a cable modem to work so I asked if it was necessary. He said he had to do his list of things, and we had to sign that he did his list of things, otherwise he couldn't leave it with us to use. Since I can always remove the cameras, I agreed, but I noticed at the top of the camera was a small antenna. Doing a search on Google for 'Comcast minicam' comes up with some pretty scary stuff as far as what it does, like: 'Records toilet breaks and sexual escapades in order to enhance customer service' Now, how does this affect us? Neither myself or anyone in my family agreed to the cameras; the cable guy did. And is there anyway to get cable companies to stop doing this as I can imagine since the cable company is a monopoly in this town, that the percentage of people who still have these cameras in their bedrooms is pretty high.
The word stripped implies that you had the ability to do this before they were created... You didn't.
Why not?
I very much doubt that Random House would even bother to release an annotaded version of a book if all their competitors could just go and copy their version and release it as well.
So? What the fuck do I care whether or not Random House bothers to release an annotaded [sic] version of a book?
Slashdot Mirror
Higher taxes mean less spending power. That equates to a reduction in purchasing, thus a reduction in revenues.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the elasticity of the demand curve. For example, if a $100 item is taxed at 5%, increasing the tax to 10% causes a 5% reduction in sales, and there were 1 million purchases at 5%, let's look at the numbers. Original revenue was 1,000,000*$5=$5 million. New revenue is 1,000,000*(0.95)*$10=$9.5 million. So it depends on the elasticity of the demand curve, as anyone who has taken Economics 101 would know.
Just a personal observation, you sound rather socialist in attitude. Feel the same about personal rights, such as the 2nd, 1st and 4th admendment?
How am I socialist in attitude? I never stated whether or not the government should increase taxes, I merely stated that if they did increase taxes, they would probably increase revenues. Actually, I didn't even say that, because this isn't a tax increase, it is merely a change in the enforcement mechanisms which hinders criminals from committing tax evasion.
There is obviously a point where it does not apply
I would argue that we are below that point already.
I was speaking of principles, not the actual number value for the ceiling, or floor of functional rates.
If you're going to speak of principles, then you should mention that raising taxes may raise revenue, or it may lower revenue, and you have no idea which it would do. Alternatively, point to an economic study showing that this particular tax enforcement strategy would lower revenues.
I think this will just drive more people away from online business, sink a sector of the economy and drive prices up for the consumer (which means they'll probably spend less, which is a Bad Thing, especially when you're in a recession).
On the other hand, it might provide incentive to online businesses to open up retail locations where people can pick up their items. The decreased shipping costs will then drive prices down for the consumer, which means they'll probably spend more, which is a Good Thing, especially when you're in a recession. The increased revenues can then be used to lower the sales tax even further. So instead of having honest people pay taxes and criminals avoid taxes, you get everyone to pay, at a lower rate.
With the reduced number of trucks on the road you'll see fewer traffic jams, less need to build new roads (which means more lowered taxes). About the only loser will be the mail order shipping industry, which is probably that "sector of the economy" you were talking about sinking...
Let's face it, making internet purchases has its plusses and its minuses. Sure, you don't have as much brick and mortar, but you have shipping costs. So why don't huge companies like Amazon simply open up distribution sites in every state? Even better they could open up pick-up locations and offer completely free shipping...
The reason they don't do this. The only reason, is because if they open up a pick-up site in my state, New Jersey, they'd have to pay sales tax every time someone from New Jersey buys a book. So instead they open up a huge warehouse in Deleware, and have New Jerseyites pay shipping instead of sales tax.
Makes it sound pretty damn inefficient, doesn't it? In fact, if you're at all an environmentalist, you should be strongly in favor of the states succeeding in passing these laws. If you don't like sales tax, move to a state that doesn't have it. Don't steal from the government by committing use tax evasion.
Yes, they do just materialize out of nowhere if the customer is buying something like a software program which can then be sent online.
Really? You don't have any wires connecting to your house?
Even better (the constitution be damned), they could start setting up checkpoints at the state borders.
Umm, what's unconstitutional about setting up checkpoints at the state borders? It's not exactly cost effective, especially when you consider the value of the people's time who are being stopped, but unconstitutional?
Basic economics.. higher taxes = less money to spend, thus lower overall tax revenue..
Yeah, they should lower the taxes to 0%, then they'll maximise their revenues! Umm....
Senators Wyden (D-Ore.) and Kyl (R-Ariz.) introduced the Global Internet Freedom Act earlier this month, setting aside $60 million over two years "to develop and deploy technologies to defeat Internet jamming and censorship."
$60 million huh? Sorry, that's not nearly enough to buy a law legalizing napster.
These sales are currently not able to be taxed by the states (assuming there is no physical presence in the state). Nothing illegal going on here.
Yeah, so they don't tax the sale, they tax the use (upon arrival in the state). It's no different, except that it's a lot harder to audit individuals than businesses. You're supposed to report your out-of-state purchases to the government (in those states with sales/use tax). If you don't you're breaking the law.
That's not what they are tracking though, some are also recording your web usage and that is a major no-no in my book...
But that's information they already have since you're connecting to those websites through them anyway.
Granted, one cannot calculate out the total numbers, but it's likely that the revenues these states expect to gain from this additional taxation may not be at the levels they estimated, and we may be better off as a nation in a time of economic recovery to be stimulating the economy through these additional purchases.
It's likely that the revenues may not be at the levels they estimated? Which one is it, likely, or just possible?
In any case, if the states can do this constitutionally, then I'm all for it, because it's not about taxing something that wasn't taxed, it's about enforcing a tax that's already there. So the only people who will be affected are already criminals anyway.
Because Florida provides you with services, such as processing your absentee ballots and protecting your legal residence from invasion from Mexico.
Most state laws (following the CNBC coverage) seem to state that if you, the customer, go across state borders and make a purchase, and then bring it to the place where you reside, most state laws cover this and put it on the consumer as the responsible party to pay the tax
BTW, it's called "use tax", and at least in New Jersey you pay it at the same time as income tax, it's one of the lines on the form.
However, no state government I know enforce this, because it's near impossible and just plain stupid.
There are at least two times it is enforced though - upon the purchase of automobiles from out of state (they get you when you register), and upon large corporations for large purchases (they audit them).
I would now say I'm dependant on [the internet], for example I haven't picked up a phone book in years.
As an aside, I once had someone complain to me on IM for a half hour that they couldn't find the number for Sprint's technical support on the Sprint webpage. I finally got sick of listening to him, and sent him an IM with the phone number. He asked me where I found it, and I told him - the phone book. He looked down to notice that his foot was resting on a phone book the whole time.
So I guess it is safe to throw away your phone books, but only if you have me on your buddy list :).
Back to the on-topic discussion, yes, most people don't realize that they're being spied on. But ultimately the only real solution to the problem is education. If you think it's a big enough problem that it's worth solving, buy some ads pointing out the problems and sell consulting services fixing it. Personally I don't think it's a big enough deal to most people to bother, though. So what if your cable company knows what type of computers you're using to access the internet?
Let's actually discuss ways to resolve it for everyone, rather than trying to make ourselves look clever.
If indeed the contract demands the software to be installed (and it wasn't just the tech making that up to make his job easier), then the resolution is really simple, you get lots of angry customers to write to the regulatory authorities and force the company to change its contract.
Telocity
So hire someone else to uninstall it (and perform a security analysis) and have them give you a receipt. Of course, you should only do this if you didn't sign a contract with Comcast allowing them to install the software.
The cable guy came over to install a cable modem at my Dad's house. As I watched him do his stuff I noticed he was installing miniature cameras in my Dad's bedroom and bathroom. I know you don't need cameras for a cable modem to work so I asked if it was necessary. He said he had to do his list of things, and we had to sign that he did his list of things, otherwise he couldn't leave it with us to use. Since I can always remove the cameras, I agreed, but I noticed at the top of the camera was a small antenna. Doing a search on Google for 'Comcast minicam' comes up with some pretty scary stuff as far as what it does, like: 'Records toilet breaks and sexual escapades in order to enhance customer service' Now, how does this affect us? Neither myself or anyone in my family agreed to the cameras; the cable guy did. And is there anyway to get cable companies to stop doing this as I can imagine since the cable company is a monopoly in this town, that the percentage of people who still have these cameras in their bedrooms is pretty high.
The word stripped implies that you had the ability to do this before they were created... You didn't.
Why not?
I very much doubt that Random House would even bother to release an annotaded version of a book if all their competitors could just go and copy their version and release it as well.
So? What the fuck do I care whether or not Random House bothers to release an annotaded [sic] version of a book?
That was in 2000. I was talking about 2002 (despite the typo which said 2000). Besides, the article you quote only mentions federal income tax.
A disclaimer is not an EULA.
Yes, but an EULA can contain a disclaimer.
A disclaimer can be just that, a disclaimer... something you are forced to read so that you can't later claim "I didn't know."
Yeah, ok, so? An EULA is a good place to put a disclaimer, since it is generally forced to be read.
Are you saying liability is not worth any money?
No.
Yeah, but only because I'm required to by law.
I didn't realize this EULA was deleting your address book. Sorry.
How many of you have read the Slashdot EULA?