We've always paid the same 17.5% sales tax on online sales as we've paid anywhere else.
Didn't stop it taking off.
I think you miss the point. We all live (in a yellow submarine?) in the UK, so paying tax in the UK sort of makes sense. In the US, they object to paying (local) taxes in states other than those in which they live. Indeed, it is (sort of) against the Constitution (no taxation without representation).
As posted above, if visitors to the UK buy stuff, they can claim back the VAT as they are not resident in the UK. A similar thing happens in the US, where you can buy stuff in the next-door state and decline the pay the local sales tax because you're not a resident.
Now, what (I think) some states (may!) have is a Use Tax, so if you Use something in your state, you should pay tax on it. Unfortunately, the Out-of-State internet company you purchase stuff from ain't gonna collect taxes for some other state, so you have to own up and pay the taxes.
Strangely enough, many (probably most!) don't own up, and hence the states thinking they are owed some (otherwise invisible) tax revenue.
Now, my take on this, FWIW, is that you do have Representation because you can vote with your feet and NOT buy stuff from states where you deem the (local) tax is too high, so I'd say the easiest way is to simply let the companies charge the local Sales Tax on all purchases. If you don't like it, shop where there's smaller (or no) sales tax.
The way I see it, it would be far simpler if the taxation was applied as if you drove to the shop and purchased the item. This way, you pay the tax as applied at the location of the goods.
Now, I hear the complaints about No Taxation without Representation, but doesn't that actually only apply when you have no option but to pay the tax in question? Surely, you have the ultimate representation - you can vote with your feet and shop elsewhere if you don't like it!
It'd sure as hell make collecting the tax a bunch easier, and you can vote in a (local) Government that will make it more attractive for Internet (Mail Order) companies to setup in your state!
In the same way that Police Officerscan give parking tickets, but it is deemed more useful for them to be concentrating on other things so Parking Wardens came about, I would like to see Litter Wardens.
Not a big deal really. I just really hate litter. It is symptomatic of the decline of society in general that lazy wankers dump their rubbish on the street, and I (for one) would like to see them fined for doing so!
Human beings are not unique in their ability to change the environment.
Indeed. I agree wholeheartedly. Other living organisms build stuff (ants, coral to name two that spring to mind), but they don't do so because "they feel like it", and they don't then get pangs of guilt if it affects any other species. We do, and as such we should excercise the responsibility that comes with knowing.
Yeast, for example, does it's thang (that creates beer - Hmmmmmm beeer!) until the solution becomes so toxic that all the yeast dies. It would seem kinda silly for us to use Yeast as a yardstick when deciding what to do in the culture dish we call Earth, because we, unlike the other creatures we share the planet with, have a choice!
Throwing rubbish is indeed a funny example, and I agree that simply bunging it in a landfill is only slightly better than chucking it out your car window (and there should be litter-wardens who can give you a ticket for doing so!), but at least once the litter has been collected up we can choose to do something else with it. But I agree, it wasn't a good example when you look at the bigger picture, it was a bit of a rant really. I just really hate smokers who think it's OK to dump their filthy dog-ends on the street. Now don't get me started on chewing gum!
Unfortunately, much as we should try not to destroy this planet by saving stuff, we have to be careful not to screw it up by saving too many species that would have gone the way of the dinosaurs anyway.
It's a fine line to be drawn in the sand, but in general (IMHO) we should only be saving those species that have been sent to the brink of extinction by Man, and only saving those within that group that we think might have survived if not for our ham-fisted approach to our own growth. Some species are just not cut out to survive!
As an example, Pandas. Pandas only eat bamboo, and have trouble producing offspring. Now, call me old fashioned, but it seems to me that they suck, in the whole "being-a-viable-species" sort of way!
Now the way I look at it is like this [tilts head to side].
We (humans) are part of nature, sure. But we are also unique in that we understand (or, poor deluded fools that we are, at least think we understand) about the Environment. This is why we can also view ourselves as being the system.
We are able, pretty much, to change the Environment, or at least bend it to our will, as and when we please.
We could decide that we don't like mosquitoes, and wipe them out in certain areas - in fact we do! We introduce non-native species all over the place and fuck up local environments - see New Zealand for example.
We can also, natural disasters not withstanding, protect the environment to a certain extent.
It seems sensible to me to always assume it's our fault until we find out otherwise, becuase we are in a position to correct mistakes if caught early enough. As programmer, if a bug is found in some system I'm working on, I always assume it was me that did it, and try and sort it out, as this is usually the quickest route to a solution.
[As an aside, it's usually not me!]
So, whilst it might not always be us, we don't have to help the planet self distruct, and if you've finished with some wrapper or your cigerette, don't throw the fucker out the window, just take it home and dispose of it like you know you should!
IMHO, the US (and us puppets in the UK!) could do a lot worse than concentrate on finding a solution for the Isreal/Palestine problem.
Put Iraq on the back burner (figuratively, rather than literally!), and sort out this mess once and for all!
Put the UN (including Arab states) in to keep the peace whilst the solution is resolved, and hopefully, whilst they are not killing each other, the tempers can be cooled down to a point where they can be rational enough to agree to some resolution.
Certainly, you'd need more fingers (or take yer shoes off) to do the space-travel math(s) by hand, but you can just pop out and get yerself a personal helicopter.
I suspect that The Improbability Drive is more likely than The Bistromatic Drive, especially for those of us who aren't drinking and didn't have the rice.
Rather than Debit Cards (automatically debiting your current account) I'd prefer Cash Cards (such as Mondex) where the card is the equivalent of cash.
It should be non-traceable, and I don't think Mondex is non-traceable, such that if you lose your card and someone picks it up, it's like they found cash, and they can use it.
This way, you don't have to worry about all the security stuff everyone gets so uptight about. You load your card (or cards) with cash at a cash point, just like you currently stuff the notes into your wallet!
Transfer from Card to Card using some little do-hicky, or simply give someone the whole Card (Christmas/Birthday Cards!).
Spinning's Bad, but as you (mostly all!) say, it's the peeps who aren't that good that tend to spin, so I just tell them it's not allowed, but if they score that's OK, as it'd be a cold day in hell before a spinner beat me anyway!
... and as for the so-called Five-Man Shot, I set my goaly and defenders to cover as much goal as possible, and if it goes in it's a goal. I can understand the annoyance if it's straight from the put-in (because I haven't been able to show my opponent how unbelievably good I am 'cos they've struck lucky!), but a goal's a goal, much like the real game, hell Maradonna even scored one in a World Cup with his hand, the stumpy Argentinian cheat!
My favourite trick is to score from my goaly, so I'm guessing I wouldn't like some Comp. Rules where you can only score from the front three!
In London,we have a bar with a Robot Bar Tender, Cynthia's Bar & Restaurant, and you tell it what cocktail you want and it mixes it for you.
Not sure what the difference between this and filling prescriptions would be?
Only gotcha is the stupid licensing laws in the UK that means that a human has to sit and watch the robot (called Cynthia as it 'appens) because you have to have a "person" there to sell alcohol!
If we compare this game with, say, Poker, where there is an element of luck and an element of skill, and where you may win or lose money it would not be possible to file a lawsuit for losing your money.
In a similar vein, if the rules of the game allow people to rob you (and it most certainly does!) and you still consent to play, if you subsequently get robbed it is just part of the recognised game play, as is being killed and losing all your posessions (presumably!) and it's just tough!
It's just a different method of paying for the game. Same with paying for connection charges (eg by the hour). If you get killed and it takes you 1/2 an hour to get back to where you were, you can't take the killer(s) to court to reimburse your lost time expence.
How about you get a bunch of mates together and logon at the same time. Find a likely looking fellow with basic weapons (start with a chap with a small sword, say) and jump him mob-handed! OK, some of you are gonna get it, but give the sword to whomever doesn't kill the sucker (so they're not Outlaws).
Repeat until you're all armed, and then go for bigger/better foes.
Sounds like fun to me!
Of course, this is assuming that setting up a character doesn't cost anything at the outset!
OK, so killing an Outlaw doesn't make you an Outlaw, so have your main character and a set of subordinates that you create to go scrumping for other peoples stuff, then your main character bumps them off for the booty!
Indeed, and in fact the analagy fall down elsewhere too. The US vs USSR Arms Race was all about mutually assured destruction, whereas in the small-arms race (for what of a better name!) you're actually keener on shooting the other fellow before they shoot you, and hopefully instead too!
The interesting point was that it was generally recognised that it would be better if neither side had the weapons. This was the starting point for the discussion, because if the Gun Lobby (NRA or whomever) don't concede this point, then there is no point continuing to discuss the point.
Of course, the analagy falls down here too, as there are few (if any!) people who enjoy letting off nukes for recreational purposes, or use nukes to go hunting, whereas there are huge numbers of people who enjoy hunting and target shooting, etc (it's even an Olympic sport - one that the UK is OK at too, for a change!). So, whilst an outright ban on the ownership of firearms is unlikely, tighter control on ownership is entirely achievable, though perhaps an uphill struggle in the US where firearms are so common.
It's also great to have a discussion with someone without all the name calling and threats!
It would indeed be very difficult to remove personal ordnance from the populace of a country that had so many weapons in circulation, as this would likely feed more weapons into the hands of the criminals.
This said, it is still possible to recognise that if (and I recognise that it is a big IF!) both sides (the law abiding and the non-law abiding) actually gave up their guns, then it would be a safer place to live. This is akin to the nuclear disarmament carried out between the US and the Russians, except the criminals are probably less likely to comply!
It is possible to make criminals give up their weapon of choice as shown in Glasgow (Scotland) where razors were used to slash victims during robberies/muggings etc. The local Judge made it known that anyone who was caught (doing anything!) who was carrying a razor (regardless of whether it was used) would be given a far harsher sentence than if they were not carrying the razor. If there was a group of criminals, and one person had a razor, they were all sentenced as if they were carrying the weapon.
Overnight, the razor problem was solved. This was the same with gun crime in the UK where the criminals would check each other to ensure on one was armed before going out on a job!
Then the bleeding heart liberals starting winging and things have been getting steadily worse!
I live in the UK, and have enjoyed firing weapons for fun (targets rather than hunting), and recognise that it is (for some) a valid and rewarding pasttime, but I am glad that I live in a country where weapon ownership is not the norm, and I feel safer for it.
If you live in the US and own a gun then good luck to you. You are living in a mini-arms race, a scaled down version of the US vs USSR nuclear one of the last decade. That ended by disarmament, and I sincerely hope your mini-one does too.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't stop it taking off.
I think you miss the point. We all live (in a yellow submarine?) in the UK, so paying tax in the UK sort of makes sense. In the US, they object to paying (local) taxes in states other than those in which they live. Indeed, it is (sort of) against the Constitution (no taxation without representation).
As posted above, if visitors to the UK buy stuff, they can claim back the VAT as they are not resident in the UK. A similar thing happens in the US, where you can buy stuff in the next-door state and decline the pay the local sales tax because you're not a resident.
Now, what (I think) some states (may!) have is a Use Tax, so if you Use something in your state, you should pay tax on it. Unfortunately, the Out-of-State internet company you purchase stuff from ain't gonna collect taxes for some other state, so you have to own up and pay the taxes.
Strangely enough, many (probably most!) don't own up, and hence the states thinking they are owed some (otherwise invisible) tax revenue.
Now, my take on this, FWIW, is that you do have Representation because you can vote with your feet and NOT buy stuff from states where you deem the (local) tax is too high, so I'd say the easiest way is to simply let the companies charge the local Sales Tax on all purchases. If you don't like it, shop where there's smaller (or no) sales tax.
- Ring Bell
- Put down cat food
- Cat eats food
- [Repeat]
- Ring Bell
- Don't put food out
- Cat doesn't Turn Up either
[thinks] I wonder if this would work with dogsAn interesting footnote is that the Cat was writing his own journal that runs something like
Now, I hear the complaints about No Taxation without Representation, but doesn't that actually only apply when you have no option but to pay the tax in question? Surely, you have the ultimate representation - you can vote with your feet and shop elsewhere if you don't like it!
It'd sure as hell make collecting the tax a bunch easier, and you can vote in a (local) Government that will make it more attractive for Internet (Mail Order) companies to setup in your state!
In the same way that Police Officers can give parking tickets, but it is deemed more useful for them to be concentrating on other things so Parking Wardens came about, I would like to see Litter Wardens.
Not a big deal really. I just really hate litter. It is symptomatic of the decline of society in general that lazy wankers dump their rubbish on the street, and I (for one) would like to see them fined for doing so!
Indeed. I agree wholeheartedly. Other living organisms build stuff (ants, coral to name two that spring to mind), but they don't do so because "they feel like it", and they don't then get pangs of guilt if it affects any other species. We do, and as such we should excercise the responsibility that comes with knowing.
Yeast, for example, does it's thang (that creates beer - Hmmmmmm beeer!) until the solution becomes so toxic that all the yeast dies. It would seem kinda silly for us to use Yeast as a yardstick when deciding what to do in the culture dish we call Earth, because we, unlike the other creatures we share the planet with, have a choice!
Throwing rubbish is indeed a funny example, and I agree that simply bunging it in a landfill is only slightly better than chucking it out your car window (and there should be litter-wardens who can give you a ticket for doing so!), but at least once the litter has been collected up we can choose to do something else with it. But I agree, it wasn't a good example when you look at the bigger picture, it was a bit of a rant really. I just really hate smokers who think it's OK to dump their filthy dog-ends on the street. Now don't get me started on chewing gum!
Unfortunately, much as we should try not to destroy this planet by saving stuff, we have to be careful not to screw it up by saving too many species that would have gone the way of the dinosaurs anyway.
It's a fine line to be drawn in the sand, but in general (IMHO) we should only be saving those species that have been sent to the brink of extinction by Man, and only saving those within that group that we think might have survived if not for our ham-fisted approach to our own growth. Some species are just not cut out to survive!
As an example, Pandas. Pandas only eat bamboo, and have trouble producing offspring. Now, call me old fashioned, but it seems to me that they suck, in the whole "being-a-viable-species" sort of way!
Interesting, but of course not allways the case. For example, see the case of Morocco's miracle mule.
We (humans) are part of nature, sure. But we are also unique in that we understand (or, poor deluded fools that we are, at least think we understand) about the Environment. This is why we can also view ourselves as being the system.
We are able, pretty much, to change the Environment, or at least bend it to our will, as and when we please.
We could decide that we don't like mosquitoes, and wipe them out in certain areas - in fact we do! We introduce non-native species all over the place and fuck up local environments - see New Zealand for example.
We can also, natural disasters not withstanding, protect the environment to a certain extent.
It seems sensible to me to always assume it's our fault until we find out otherwise, becuase we are in a position to correct mistakes if caught early enough. As programmer, if a bug is found in some system I'm working on, I always assume it was me that did it, and try and sort it out, as this is usually the quickest route to a solution.
[As an aside, it's usually not me!]
So, whilst it might not always be us, we don't have to help the planet self distruct, and if you've finished with some wrapper or your cigerette, don't throw the fucker out the window, just take it home and dispose of it like you know you should!
Hmmmmmmm. Mashed Potatoes.
OK, so how'd ya get a crowd to do a Mexican Particle then?
err, $$Profit?
Put Iraq on the back burner (figuratively, rather than literally!), and sort out this mess once and for all!
Put the UN (including Arab states) in to keep the peace whilst the solution is resolved, and hopefully, whilst they are not killing each other, the tempers can be cooled down to a point where they can be rational enough to agree to some resolution.
It should be non-traceable, and I don't think Mondex is non-traceable, such that if you lose your card and someone picks it up, it's like they found cash, and they can use it.
This way, you don't have to worry about all the security stuff everyone gets so uptight about. You load your card (or cards) with cash at a cash point, just like you currently stuff the notes into your wallet!
Transfer from Card to Card using some little do-hicky, or simply give someone the whole Card (Christmas/Birthday Cards!).
My favourite trick is to score from my goaly, so I'm guessing I wouldn't like some Comp. Rules where you can only score from the front three!
Not sure what the difference between this and filling prescriptions would be?
Only gotcha is the stupid licensing laws in the UK that means that a human has to sit and watch the robot (called Cynthia as it 'appens) because you have to have a "person" there to sell alcohol!
In a similar vein, if the rules of the game allow people to rob you (and it most certainly does!) and you still consent to play, if you subsequently get robbed it is just part of the recognised game play, as is being killed and losing all your posessions (presumably!) and it's just tough!
It's just a different method of paying for the game. Same with paying for connection charges (eg by the hour). If you get killed and it takes you 1/2 an hour to get back to where you were, you can't take the killer(s) to court to reimburse your lost time expence.
Repeat until you're all armed, and then go for bigger/better foes.
Sounds like fun to me!
Of course, this is assuming that setting up a character doesn't cost anything at the outset!
Neat!
The interesting point was that it was generally recognised that it would be better if neither side had the weapons. This was the starting point for the discussion, because if the Gun Lobby (NRA or whomever) don't concede this point, then there is no point continuing to discuss the point.
Of course, the analagy falls down here too, as there are few (if any!) people who enjoy letting off nukes for recreational purposes, or use nukes to go hunting, whereas there are huge numbers of people who enjoy hunting and target shooting, etc (it's even an Olympic sport - one that the UK is OK at too, for a change!). So, whilst an outright ban on the ownership of firearms is unlikely, tighter control on ownership is entirely achievable, though perhaps an uphill struggle in the US where firearms are so common.
It's also great to have a discussion with someone without all the name calling and threats!
This said, it is still possible to recognise that if (and I recognise that it is a big IF!) both sides (the law abiding and the non-law abiding) actually gave up their guns, then it would be a safer place to live. This is akin to the nuclear disarmament carried out between the US and the Russians, except the criminals are probably less likely to comply!
It is possible to make criminals give up their weapon of choice as shown in Glasgow (Scotland) where razors were used to slash victims during robberies/muggings etc. The local Judge made it known that anyone who was caught (doing anything!) who was carrying a razor (regardless of whether it was used) would be given a far harsher sentence than if they were not carrying the razor. If there was a group of criminals, and one person had a razor, they were all sentenced as if they were carrying the weapon.
Overnight, the razor problem was solved. This was the same with gun crime in the UK where the criminals would check each other to ensure on one was armed before going out on a job!
Then the bleeding heart liberals starting winging and things have been getting steadily worse!
I live in the UK, and have enjoyed firing weapons for fun (targets rather than hunting), and recognise that it is (for some) a valid and rewarding pasttime, but I am glad that I live in a country where weapon ownership is not the norm, and I feel safer for it.
If you live in the US and own a gun then good luck to you. You are living in a mini-arms race, a scaled down version of the US vs USSR nuclear one of the last decade. That ended by disarmament, and I sincerely hope your mini-one does too.