Sales tax here in NC is different from sells tax in SC, therefore I can be in compliance with my states laws without being able to properly collect taxes for a state I am not in. I am still in compliance with the law, as there is no current law requiring me to collect sales tax for SC.
Think before you post.
And it is blatantly unfair that online firms have to pay for shipping in a lot of cases to compete and have razor thin margins, things which the so called "mom and pop" stores dont.
To be honest your post is pretty silly. The use tax was created in the 1930s in my state so not exactly "a couple years ago". Sales tax is sales tax is sales tax, does not matter if in state or out of state.
This is not a new tax. Al the states have laws that state that the citizens must declare their out of state purchases and pay taxes voluntarily. Most state income tax forms have lines asking for this information.
But, everyone knows, it is very difficult to enforce and people will lie or "mis remember" about their out-of-state purchases. People who denounce this new move as onerous, bad, etc are tax cheats to dodge the tax or benefit by aiding and abetting tax dodging.
Gotta love when someone starts with a logical fallacy.
I see no reason why the internet businesses, whose existence came in because of long investments by the government in R&D and infrastructure, now denounce the government.
I think you are using the word denounce wrong.. They are denouncing the bill, not the government.
If they get this tax law watered down, I wish the brick and mortor businesses push for a new tax on all internet companies to out of state sales, be levied a new federal tax to recoup the investment the federal and state governments (dont forget the state universities R&D contributions).
Just because the R&D takes place at a state university does not mean it was state money that funded it. Most such research is paid for by businesses or federal grants.
They will be given a rebate equal to the amount of sales tax they have collected on behalf of state governments, all other federal sales should be charged a flat 6% federal tax. The Federal government might redistribute the money based on population or sales volume per state.
How do you distribute money for the states that have no sales tax, or will this be like the copyright levies on CDS in some countries, it goes to benefit the collector and not the creators.
They have more information than what even you think. They can get information from other people on the web as well, that you wont know they have.
This type of legislation only opens you up to tons of costly lawsuits from the outliers of society which can normally be taken care of quick and easily, unless you are breaking the law.
Price matters immensely. If I wanna do something for you for free, why do I have to adhere to a minimum level of service that is above the free service I am willing to offer. You know the service I provide, you are not paying for the service, so why do you get to dictate that it be more?
Depends, what is the reason for the presence there? Can they get that benefit elsewhere, and save the money of the salary of the people?
But yes, cutting out a cost of doing business in one location, while still being able to provide the service in that area is win win.
Do you think before you post I think would be a better question. Currently it may be profitable to stay in the company, but if they lose a lawsuit, about something that is not even int he law I might add, then it may not become profitable, or good for their business.
Things change.. Just because it is good now does not mean it will be good tomorrow.
Try asking them: Which personal information have you stored about me? Where did you get this information from? Whom did you share this information with? You see German law states that everyone owns his own personal information and that any company that stores or processes personal information must answer the questions I mentioned.
When you add the "try asking them" you are implying from from their perspective, so yes they answered your question, because your question was not directly about you. Just because you now what to change it to being about you does not change that fact.
Reading comprehension bro. HE did not say women in general did not like intense thinking, but some of them dont like intense thinking, and even beyond that, some women he knows.
So they comply with the law, but then dont do something that you want them to, that is not part of the law, so you want to sue them as though they are breaking the law.....
Does the law state that is it means to start a conversation? They do get a reply, so define a conversation...
The meaning of the law is what it says. It appears they are adhereing to what it says, just not what you want it to say.
Ahh so if I make money from x, but provide Y for free Y should be punished because I make X, great logic there buba
Why does a free service have to have a minimum set of guarantees of service?
Slashdot Mirror
This is not completely true. A company in one state is not under any legal obligation to collect sales tax for other states under any current law.,
Sales tax here in NC is different from sells tax in SC, therefore I can be in compliance with my states laws without being able to properly collect taxes for a state I am not in. I am still in compliance with the law, as there is no current law requiring me to collect sales tax for SC. Think before you post.
No, it is not. Tax on online purchases in most states is already law, one most people dont follow, but still law.
And it is blatantly unfair that online firms have to pay for shipping in a lot of cases to compete and have razor thin margins, things which the so called "mom and pop" stores dont.
Not a relevant argument. Third parties should not be held responsible before you dont follow your state's law.
To be honest your post is pretty silly. The use tax was created in the 1930s in my state so not exactly "a couple years ago". Sales tax is sales tax is sales tax, does not matter if in state or out of state.
This is not a new tax. Al the states have laws that state that the citizens must declare their out of state purchases and pay taxes voluntarily. Most state income tax forms have lines asking for this information.
But, everyone knows, it is very difficult to enforce and people will lie or "mis remember" about their out-of-state purchases. People who denounce this new move as onerous, bad, etc are tax cheats to dodge the tax or benefit by aiding and abetting tax dodging.
Gotta love when someone starts with a logical fallacy.
I see no reason why the internet businesses, whose existence came in because of long investments by the government in R&D and infrastructure, now denounce the government.
I think you are using the word denounce wrong.. They are denouncing the bill, not the government.
If they get this tax law watered down, I wish the brick and mortor businesses push for a new tax on all internet companies to out of state sales, be levied a new federal tax to recoup the investment the federal and state governments (dont forget the state universities R&D contributions).
Just because the R&D takes place at a state university does not mean it was state money that funded it. Most such research is paid for by businesses or federal grants.
They will be given a rebate equal to the amount of sales tax they have collected on behalf of state governments, all other federal sales should be charged a flat 6% federal tax. The Federal government might redistribute the money based on population or sales volume per state.
How do you distribute money for the states that have no sales tax, or will this be like the copyright levies on CDS in some countries, it goes to benefit the collector and not the creators.
or maybe 8.1
They have more information than what even you think. They can get information from other people on the web as well, that you wont know they have. This type of legislation only opens you up to tons of costly lawsuits from the outliers of society which can normally be taken care of quick and easily, unless you are breaking the law.
In other words you dont want politicians, you have a couple directly opposed wants in there.
That does not change his point, you are not paying for your neighbors insurance unless they are on medicare or medicaid.
accessible for telemedia which are offered commercially, generally in return for a fee:
1. the name and address at which they are established, in the case of legal persons also the
legal form, the authorised representative and, to the extent that details are provided of
the equity of the company, the share and nominal capital and, if all the deposits to be
made in money have not yet been paid in, the total amount of outstanding deposits,
2. details which permit rapid electronic contact and direct communication with them,
including the electronic mail address,
3. to the extent that the service is offered or provided in the context of an activity subject
of approval from a state agency, details of the relevant supervisory body,
4. the commercial register, association register, partnership register or co-operative
register in which they are entered and the corresponding register number,
5. to the extent that the service is offered or provided in exercising an occupation within
the meaning of Article 1 Letter d of Directive 89/48/EC of the Council of 21 December
1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ
EC No. L 19 p. 16), or within the meaning of Article 1 Letter f of the Directive
92/51/EEC of the Council of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the
recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC
(OJ EC No. L 209 p. 25, 1995 No. L 17 p. 20), most recently amended by Directive
97/38/EC of the Commission of 20 June 1997 (OJ EC No. L 184 p. 31), details of
a) the chamber to which the service providers belong,
b) the statutory designation of the occupation and the state in which the designation of
the occupation was awarded,
c) the designation of the professional rules and of how these can be accessed
Price matters immensely. If I wanna do something for you for free, why do I have to adhere to a minimum level of service that is above the free service I am willing to offer. You know the service I provide, you are not paying for the service, so why do you get to dictate that it be more?
Why wont they be able to provide the service.. Is germany going to block gmail.com or google.com? I am not trying to squirm anything..
Depends, what is the reason for the presence there? Can they get that benefit elsewhere, and save the money of the salary of the people? But yes, cutting out a cost of doing business in one location, while still being able to provide the service in that area is win win.
Do you think before you post I think would be a better question. Currently it may be profitable to stay in the company, but if they lose a lawsuit, about something that is not even int he law I might add, then it may not become profitable, or good for their business. Things change.. Just because it is good now does not mean it will be good tomorrow.
Really? what is the point.. Do you not have that capacity some how?
Try asking them: Which personal information have you stored about me? Where did you get this information from? Whom did you share this information with? You see German law states that everyone owns his own personal information and that any company that stores or processes personal information must answer the questions I mentioned.
When you add the "try asking them" you are implying from from their perspective, so yes they answered your question, because your question was not directly about you. Just because you now what to change it to being about you does not change that fact.
And google is complying with how the law is defined, just now how you want it defined.
Men used to be the sole workforce for skilled labor (IE those fields) so that does not eliminate brain factors
Reading comprehension bro. HE did not say women in general did not like intense thinking, but some of them dont like intense thinking, and even beyond that, some women he knows.
And they have contacts
So they comply with the law, but then dont do something that you want them to, that is not part of the law, so you want to sue them as though they are breaking the law..... Does the law state that is it means to start a conversation? They do get a reply, so define a conversation... The meaning of the law is what it says. It appears they are adhereing to what it says, just not what you want it to say.
Ahh so if I make money from x, but provide Y for free Y should be punished because I make X, great logic there buba Why does a free service have to have a minimum set of guarantees of service?
Which part of the laws covers the reply? I would like a link to it.