Um, doesn't selling your car and transfering the titles, and the new owner getting his own places change the registered owner? I'd think that it does..
No, you'll get yelled at if you don't dial a one for long distance calls. I'm not sure, but i think dialing 1 WON'T work if only 10 are required. I'll try it later:-)
Philly has had this for 2 years i believe. In addition, 10 years ago there was just area code 215. The same geographic region that was covered by 215 now has 6 seperate area codes.
I probably did, but not often. I think it was too spoty on the music i liked for me to remember it. I'm pretty intolerant when it comes to songs i don't like...usually if i hear one, i immediatly switch to cd...where it stays for the rest of the drive.
The nerve (before the buyout) consistantly played music i liked or was indifferent too. Plus if i remember correctly, e-man was pretty funny to listen to also.
Perhaps the difference is in your speeding ticket example, you've done something wrong under the law.
Paying an extra tax on blank media when you haven't done something wrong is what people are upset about. but you can bet that if such a thing happened here in the US, i certainly would start copying music. If they're going to take my money b/c they assume (and to make up for) my downloading of music, i might as well.
When i was in college, the best radio station i ever heard was The Nerve in rochester ny. They played music i liked (as well as the other college kids) and most of their commercials were done by teh station (or so it seemed...usually it was the same 2 guys doing them). That station had a great personality. Then clear channel bought them out. Now its the same crappy station that gets played here in SE PA. You know, play 1 good song, 1 song yhou really don't want to hear, one you don't care about, and then about 25 mins of commercials. Ugh.
i agree with you... it's like saying "grocery prices are outrageous... to show my malcontent i'll go rob a grocery store". the legal way to show malcontent is to not purchase the product. if enough ppl do this, things change.
Except that in this cash the grocery store would be adding a gas tax because cars help you rob their stores. Everyone must pay the tax even if they are honest.
Via the tax, they get my money for doing nothing at all. I've gotten no product in return, and i'm being punished for what someone else is doing.
if you're paying all this money to them from the gas tax, you'd probably start to think that they owe you something in return. You've already paid for the food via the gas tax so you just take it from thier store w/o paying there. Its not a hard line of reasoning to follow, and i don't think its rationalization.
Every esoteric little book reviewed on slashdot can be purchased at a store locally to you? You can find the latest revision level of GigaByte's latest & greatest Athlon motherboard within a 60 minute drive?
Considering the number of book stores or other stores within 60 minutes of me, most likely. If not, they can special order it. Same goes for motherboards.
One of the advantages of living within 35 minutes of a city with millions of people is that you can find everything you could want.
Hmmm, riiiight. The point was news articles quoted are all about the buyer paying the sales tax to the state he lives in. Michigan already has such a "use tax": you are supposed to pay a tax on the goods you use in that state, regardless of what state (or country, as Canada is mere minutes away from the South East corner) (Detroit! What?!?) you live in. New York will often has "tax inspector" coming New Jersey shopping malls looking for New York license plates on cars. Changes are, you owe your home state sales tax no matter where you buy your shit, this is just about collecting it.
So why do we need another law, if one already exists? Use taxes are special to Michigan; all states have them. If enforcement is the problem, maybe there's something else wrong with the law, namely that its unenforcable. So find another way, such as raising local sales tax or some other such thing.
As I wrote above, you probably already owe the sales tax, even if it isn't automatically collected. I buy form the internet 'cause I of the selection and convenience: if I want a specific main board or book, I don't have to go to all of the local CompUSA/Frye's/Barnes and Nobel/B. Dalton/etc. to see who may have it in stock. Playing "best price" is a loosing game, markets win on selection and service.
Use tax isn't the same thing as sales tax. The problem with the use tax as it stands is that it puts a huge burden on mail order / internet sales. Current brick & mortar stores are complaining that MO and inet have an unfair advantage; maybe they do. However requiring a MO or inet company puts a huge burden on them, one most won't be able to absorb. This probably would kill off the smaller internet shops, which of course B&M stores would. The balance would shift even more heavily to the B&M stores then it had been on the inet stores. As an added benefit, the B&M stores lose thier only serious competion.
AS far as your 'markets win on selection and service' goes, i don't buy that. The service from an internet store or a B&M store is about the same. Selection is about the same as well (i can find anything locally, either at a chain or mom and pop store). Price is the only reason i shop online.
See above re: find a profitable business model or get a new job. Also on this point... why should "online" stores have an advantage over brick-and-mortar stores?
Going with this law, the scale won't be balance, just tipped heavily to the other side. Why should B&M stores have an advantage? The other difference is that the gov't is changing the playing field, not the consumers. Personally, i never argue the 'find another business model' concept.
You think so? How many people are employed in a MeatSpace mom-and-pop shop vs. an internet mom-and-pop shop? How many small business employ really employ more than the owners?
I'd assume about the same, since most internet mom and pop stores are also meatspace stores.
Welcome to Civics 101: bureaucracies are seldom efficient or logical. And again, government misspending is not the point of the articles quoted in the original post.
Heh...this is true. Does that mean we shouldn't try to fix this problem? I doubt thats wat you mean. True, gov't misspending isn't the pont of the articles, but raising revenue is. One step they can make is making things more effiecent. Everyone else has to do it when their funds are stretched, the gov't shouldn't be any exception. Once they've done that, then i believe they should move on to other ways to increase revenue .
I don't think its getting rates thats the problem; i think its the burden of having to file up to 50 tax forms with each state and sending them the tax money.
I shouldn't HAVE to pay sales tax to a state i don't live in if i'm not in it. Thats taxation w/o representation...maybe you've heard of the idea before?
It will hurt internet sales even more. One reason people buy from the net is because its a bit cheaper because there is no sales sax. If this is the case, people may stop buying on the internet, and smaller shops may be forced out of buisness. This would cause job loss and actually lower the amount of revenue a state takes in. Not only did they lose the sales tax, they lost the other taxes paid by a running buisness.
You said it yourself; most tax money is wasted. So your solution is more tax? Thats pointless, the state will mismanage its new source of revenue just as bad as it mismanaged its other revenue. Raising taxes when there is waste is not logical.
Can't find what i want because what i said is not true in canada, but if you read this, i think you'll agree that blank cd-rs can hold far more then audio recordings, thus the logic from the same ruling that settled the question of the rios status can be applied to blank cdrs.
Since cdrs can hold far more then just music (just like a hard drive can), they arent taxed (with the exception of audio cdrs, which are).
If you pay poor people to make your shoes, we hate that, cause we want poor people to always be poor.
No, what we mind is paying poor people almost nothing, requiring them to work much longer hours and with virtually no safety.
We also don't like having children in these conditions.
After all, those who support liberty have actually READ The Bill of Rights and know very well what it says.
You go read the whole thing, starting with the Preamble to the Constition. You MUST keep that in mind when reading the rest of the document.
You may also want to read other writings of the Framers. I don't think you can argue that thier other writings are irrelevent to the Constitution. Maybe you'll understand why they wanted such a government to begin with, and why they worded certain parts the way they did.
The thing is, you fail to realize that a corporation is comprised of individuals.
And why does this matter when we're talking about what corporations may or may not do? I think we should settle this debate once and for all; revoke all corporations charters. There is no right to form a corporation to begin with after all.
Same person, same soap-box, different types of speech. And corporations are the same as individuals, that's why you're allowed to take them to court.
A group of people do not gain more rights simply because they are a group. Corporations are NOT people, even though people run them. If thats true, you have mob rule. Thats not what kind of government we have (or want).
You can take a corporation to court becaues law is what created them and defines the rules. So its simply law, not that corporations are people, that lets you take them to work.
It does appear when discussing how to count population to determine the number of representives a state gets. Do you think that people not allowed to vote were actually able to exercise thier rights?
Slashdot Mirror
Um, doesn't selling your car and transfering the titles, and the new owner getting his own places change the registered owner? I'd think that it does..
No, you'll get yelled at if you don't dial a one for long distance calls. I'm not sure, but i think dialing 1 WON'T work if only 10 are required. I'll try it later :-)
Philly has had this for 2 years i believe. In addition, 10 years ago there was just area code 215. The same geographic region that was covered by 215 now has 6 seperate area codes.
I probably did, but not often. I think it was too spoty on the music i liked for me to remember it. I'm pretty intolerant when it comes to songs i don't like...usually if i hear one, i immediatly switch to cd...where it stays for the rest of the drive.
The nerve (before the buyout) consistantly played music i liked or was indifferent too. Plus if i remember correctly, e-man was pretty funny to listen to also.
Perhaps the difference is in your speeding ticket example, you've done something wrong under the law.
Paying an extra tax on blank media when you haven't done something wrong is what people are upset about. but you can bet that if such a thing happened here in the US, i certainly would start copying music. If they're going to take my money b/c they assume (and to make up for) my downloading of music, i might as well.
While Condit did kill that girl
And you have proof, beyond speculation and circumstantial evidence?
When i was in college, the best radio station i ever heard was The Nerve in rochester ny. They played music i liked (as well as the other college kids) and most of their commercials were done by teh station (or so it seemed...usually it was the same 2 guys doing them). That station had a great personality. Then clear channel bought them out. Now its the same crappy station that gets played here in SE PA. You know, play 1 good song, 1 song yhou really don't want to hear, one you don't care about, and then about 25 mins of commercials. Ugh.
i agree with you... it's like saying "grocery prices are outrageous... to show my malcontent i'll go rob a grocery store". the legal way to show malcontent is to not purchase the product. if enough ppl do this, things change.
Except that in this cash the grocery store would be adding a gas tax because cars help you rob their stores. Everyone must pay the tax even if they are honest.
Via the tax, they get my money for doing nothing at all. I've gotten no product in return, and i'm being punished for what someone else is doing.
if you're paying all this money to them from the gas tax, you'd probably start to think that they owe you something in return. You've already paid for the food via the gas tax so you just take it from thier store w/o paying there. Its not a hard line of reasoning to follow, and i don't think its rationalization.
I think by music cdrs, he means the ones specifically label as blank crds for audio recordings. They do exist you know...
Every esoteric little book reviewed on slashdot can be purchased at a store locally to you? You can find the latest revision level of GigaByte's latest & greatest Athlon motherboard within a 60 minute drive?
Considering the number of book stores or other stores within 60 minutes of me, most likely. If not, they can special order it. Same goes for motherboards.
One of the advantages of living within 35 minutes of a city with millions of people is that you can find everything you could want.
Hmmm, riiiight. The point was news articles quoted are all about the buyer paying the sales tax to the state he lives in. Michigan already has such a "use tax": you are supposed to pay a tax on the goods you use in that state, regardless of what state (or country, as Canada is mere minutes away from the South East corner) (Detroit! What?!?) you live in. New York will often has "tax inspector" coming New Jersey shopping malls looking for New York license plates on cars. Changes are, you owe your home state sales tax no matter where you buy your shit, this is just about collecting it.
So why do we need another law, if one already exists? Use taxes are special to Michigan; all states have them. If enforcement is the problem, maybe there's something else wrong with the law, namely that its unenforcable. So find another way, such as raising local sales tax or some other such thing.
As I wrote above, you probably already owe the sales tax, even if it isn't automatically collected. I buy form the internet 'cause I of the selection and convenience: if I want a specific main board or book, I don't have to go to all of the local CompUSA/Frye's/Barnes and Nobel/B. Dalton/etc. to see who may have it in stock. Playing "best price" is a loosing game, markets win on selection and service.
Use tax isn't the same thing as sales tax. The problem with the use tax as it stands is that it puts a huge burden on mail order / internet sales. Current brick & mortar stores are complaining that MO and inet have an unfair advantage; maybe they do. However requiring a MO or inet company puts a huge burden on them, one most won't be able to absorb. This probably would kill off the smaller internet shops, which of course B&M stores would. The balance would shift even more heavily to the B&M stores then it had been on the inet stores. As an added benefit, the B&M stores lose thier only serious competion.
AS far as your 'markets win on selection and service' goes, i don't buy that. The service from an internet store or a B&M store is about the same. Selection is about the same as well (i can find anything locally, either at a chain or mom and pop store). Price is the only reason i shop online.
See above re: find a profitable business model or get a new job. Also on this point... why should "online" stores have an advantage over brick-and-mortar stores?
Going with this law, the scale won't be balance, just tipped heavily to the other side. Why should B&M stores have an advantage? The other difference is that the gov't is changing the playing field, not the consumers. Personally, i never argue the 'find another business model' concept.
You think so? How many people are employed in a MeatSpace mom-and-pop shop vs. an internet mom-and-pop shop? How many small business employ really employ more than the owners?
I'd assume about the same, since most internet mom and pop stores are also meatspace stores.
Welcome to Civics 101: bureaucracies are seldom efficient or logical. And again, government misspending is not the point of the articles quoted in the original post.
Heh...this is true. Does that mean we shouldn't try to fix this problem? I doubt thats wat you mean. True, gov't misspending isn't the pont of the articles, but raising revenue is. One step they can make is making things more effiecent. Everyone else has to do it when their funds are stretched, the gov't shouldn't be any exception. Once they've done that, then i believe they should move on to other ways to increase revenue .
You're right about teens being taxed, which is why i feel that no one under 18 should have to pay income tax.
I don't think its getting rates thats the problem; i think its the burden of having to file up to 50 tax forms with each state and sending them the tax money.
Hmm...here's some reasons why.
I shouldn't HAVE to pay sales tax to a state i don't live in if i'm not in it. Thats taxation w/o representation...maybe you've heard of the idea before?
It will hurt internet sales even more. One reason people buy from the net is because its a bit cheaper because there is no sales sax. If this is the case, people may stop buying on the internet, and smaller shops may be forced out of buisness. This would cause job loss and actually lower the amount of revenue a state takes in. Not only did they lose the sales tax, they lost the other taxes paid by a running buisness.
You said it yourself; most tax money is wasted. So your solution is more tax? Thats pointless, the state will mismanage its new source of revenue just as bad as it mismanaged its other revenue. Raising taxes when there is waste is not logical.
Hope i gave you some things to think about.
Can't find what i want because what i said is not true in canada, but if you read this, i think you'll agree that blank cd-rs can hold far more then audio recordings, thus the logic from the same ruling that settled the question of the rios status can be applied to blank cdrs.
Since cdrs can hold far more then just music (just like a hard drive can), they arent taxed (with the exception of audio cdrs, which are).
Socialism's death toll is over 100 million in the last 100 years.
Capitalism has killed an alarming number of people too.
Meanwhile capitalism has raised over a BILLION people out of the poverty level in that same period
Funny, last i heard, here in the US, the rich were getting richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class was losing ground.
You are.
If you pay poor people to make your shoes, we hate that, cause we want poor people to always be poor.
No, what we mind is paying poor people almost nothing, requiring them to work much longer hours and with virtually no safety.
We also don't like having children in these conditions.
After all, those who support liberty have actually READ The Bill of Rights and know very well what it says.
You go read the whole thing, starting with the Preamble to the Constition. You MUST keep that in mind when reading the rest of the document.
You may also want to read other writings of the Framers. I don't think you can argue that thier other writings are irrelevent to the Constitution. Maybe you'll understand why they wanted such a government to begin with, and why they worded certain parts the way they did.
I think he is making reference to things like the Ministry of Love, which in reality is all about spreading hate.
Why should they lose their free speech rights just because they happen to work for a corporation?
You don't, but i don't think you get the right to lie either.
Corporations have been ruled to be legal persons by the courts
If what i read here, is true, that even that is not true. It was merely an opinion that had no weight of law behind it.
The thing is, you fail to realize that a corporation is comprised of individuals.
And why does this matter when we're talking about what corporations may or may not do? I think we should settle this debate once and for all; revoke all corporations charters. There is no right to form a corporation to begin with after all.
Same person, same soap-box, different types of speech. And corporations are the same as individuals, that's why you're allowed to take them to court.
A group of people do not gain more rights simply because they are a group. Corporations are NOT people, even though people run them. If thats true, you have mob rule. Thats not what kind of government we have (or want).
You can take a corporation to court becaues law is what created them and defines the rules. So its simply law, not that corporations are people, that lets you take them to work.
Yup, and they are not making laws restricting a human's right to free speech.
You honestly believe that the First amendment applies to cats?
Your statement is so far out there, i can only conclude that you must be a troll.
It does appear when discussing how to count population to determine the number of representives a state gets. Do you think that people not allowed to vote were actually able to exercise thier rights?