As are you. In her book "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression" the political economist Amity Shlaes argues FDR's economic policies lengthened the Great Depression. Economist Milton Friedman goes further, he argues "The Great Depression Could Have Been Avoided if the Fed Had Not So Badly Botched Its Monetary Policy". Why the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act practically shutdown international trade in 1930. In retaliation other nations passed their own protectionist and anti-trade laws. The US was a great exporter but new tariffs drove US employers out of business.
the only entity that can truly stimulate demand is government.
Again BS!!! If you're so dense you believe that then how do you explain Al Capone and all the other MAFIA figures who became rich, and dead, during Prohibition and the War on Drugs going on now? No, people stimulate demand by wanting to buy, and by having the money to do so. People will even steal from others to get the money. Witness the gangland warfare south of the US/Mexican border, which is spilling over into the US. Legal, and taxed, drugs would end most of the violence. And releasing all those non-violent drug offenders will turn them from a drain on taxes to tax payers.
Well, taxes on the wealthy are at pre-Depression era lows
Well, the wealthy already pay most of the taxes in the US. How much do the rich pay? The top 1% paid 28% of all federal taxes and the top 10% paid 55%. Here's a webpage with links to IRS spreadsheet tables "by Tax Rate and Income Percentile".
Social Security (which does not add a single penny to the deficit) and Medicare are on the chopping block
Two things about this, one is what is true today will not be true in the future. Today there are something like 3.3 people working and paying into Social Security (SS) for every person collecting SS. In 1950 the ratio was 16 | 1 By 2025 it will be 2 |1. If you take the last Baby boomers as being born in 1964, they will retire in 2029 if the retirement age is not raised. The second issue is that if the money workers had paid into SS had been invested in the financial markets, yes Wall Street as well as other places, those workers would have come out ahead. Looking at the historical data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average since 1900 only once has there been a 10 year period in which the average low lower at the end, during the Great Depression. Social Security was created as a consequence, as a safety net. People were still expected to invest while they worked. And with Medicare, I'd rather the government give people money to buy the health insurance they want in a free market than how it is now.
rather than say even one damn dollar of the out-of-control defense budget. If you wanted to talk about "runaway" programs, that is.
I have advocated cutting defense spending too. There isn't a place where the feds spend I have not advocated spending cuts. Hell I've advocate abolishing entire agencies, bureaus, and departments. Not only have I advocated getting rid of the office of the Drug czar, Drug Enforcement Administration or DEA, and others I have advocated legalizing and taxing marijuana and other illegal drugs.
And no, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. I used to, I got a kick out of the lies and distortions he told. I don't support any of the Tea parties either, they don't want to be told what to do but they sure want to tell others what they can and can not do.
People who ride bikes often complain about lack of bike lanes, but rarely ask for an annual assessment on bicycles to cover the cost of those lanes and maintenance.
Hell vehicle drivers don't pay for the cost of roads, try to tell people their fuel tax is going to be raised and see what happens. The US has among the lowest gasoline and diesel fuel costs because the taxes on them are among the lowest in the world. If drivers don't pay their full costs why should bike riders pay, especially when cars, SUVs, and trucks cause much more wear and tear on roads?
I've proposed before and will again now how to pay for roads. Raise the fuel tax as well as a tax on tires, so bikers pay too, but lower income tax. If the average person sees their fuel cost rise $100 a month cost their income tax $100 a month. Those who don't have income tax, or have enough income tax to cover it, deducted from their pay then give them a credit. For cash and food support, ie Food Stamps (oops it's now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), governments give recipients Electronic Benefit Transfer or EBT cards. These cards are used like credit and debit cards with many stores accepting them. Just add the credit to the EBT cards.
Fuel tax may only pay part of road maintenance costs, so also start a mileage fee. Every year car owners have to renew their license plate tags, well when they do have the car's miles driven recorded and have a fee due based on that. Then those who own more fuel efficient cars will pay some too. An added benefit to higher fuel costs is that it can spur people to get more fuel efficient vehicles thus reducing the use of fossil fuels.
My mistake, Obama was responsible for the budget for 2 years. However Bush was responsible for 8 years during which the budget and deficit ballooned while government expanded.
Note also that, technically, the Congress does the budget.
Note that the House of Representatives creates the budget but nothing stops either the president or the Senate from proposing a budget too. However it doesn't matter to me, they are all responsible for over spending and putting the federal government outside Constitutional limits. That includes Democrats and Republicans, the opposite sides of the same coin. All they disagree on is what part of government will be bigger as well as how they'll interfere with the economy.
James Madison said this of standing armies:
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
That webpage has other choice quotes on standing armies from other founding fathers. Madison also had choice words about government not having limited powers. And don't try to use the general welfare clause, Madison dealt with that too saying:
"With respect to the words of general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one..."
Quite simply, by reducing the size of the federal government to put it within the limits put on it by the Constitution federal spending would be cut dramatically. Each state could then be used as a laboratory and experimented with to find what works best. States could do the same and devolve power to localities, to cities, counties, and parishes.
Don't tell me what I outlined before will not work. If you want to convince me provide facts not opinions.
It's a mix of a monolithic country like France or England
Yes and no. Neither England nor France is as monolithic as many believe. Here's a list of Languages of France. Breton is a Celtic language spoken in Brittany in the north-west of France. Other Celtic languages are spoken on down the Atlantic coast to Spain. Meanwhile the Basque Language is Euskara. And though this list of languages is for the UK some of the languages listed are used in England.
In this way they, and other European nations, resemble the United States. The American Indian tribes have their own languages.
I agree there are many reasons why Amazon is successful without tax coming into it. That's one of the reasons I feel Amazon doesn't need the extra advantage of not having the charge sales tax. I realize that making Amazon et al. charge state tax won't level the playing field entirely (or even much at all), but it is one step to equalizing opportunity between physical and virtual retailers.
What's stopping those physical retailers from going online? Only their unwillingness. Back in the mid '90s I knew 2 people who owned different local bookstores and they both opened virtual stores. One of them sold her physical store a few months later, her virtual store was making more money with less work and someone else bought the physical store. I'm not sure how the other store is doing but it's still online and with a meeting room it was a popular place to meet and have classes or such.
That state is providing infrastructure to the customer... maintaining roads, providing schools, what have you.
Building roads may be paid for with property tax, then road maintenance should be paid for by drivers. Require owners to pay a fee depending on how many miles they drive. An easy way to do this is to pay when the license tags are renewed each year. When renewed the odometer is read then how many mile were driven is calculated, just subtract the previous year's odometer reading. Then say 1000 mile driven costs $10 so driving 10,000 will cost $100. Of course this is in addition to the fuel tax.
Providing schools is paid for with property tax as is the fire department, police, and rescue. The rest of "what have you" I don't know about.
Interesting, I like it. However it's really only good for old out of print collectables and such. A printer can print books cheaper than that can. What I've proposed before is to have a pdf available for download then offer a craft printed and signed edition as well. I would like to start a business as a photographer and thought about doing something like it. In wedding photography photographers have started offering crafted books of wedding photographs and they seem popular. School and little league sports is another area this can be done, parents have been willing to higher and pay photographers to photograph their little athletes, though I don't know how business has been going since the recession started.
If you don't take your store online that's your fault. Amazon helps you sell online. As does eBay. A couple of weeks ago I placed an order with Amazon, and will place another in the next couple of days, and the items come from other businesses. J&R Music and Computer World is one of Amazon's stores. Etsy is a community and market place for artists, deviantART is another. And obviously the net makes it easier to find jobs whether permanent full-time employment or short term contract work.
Pretty soon, brick n mortar stores will die off and you'll never be able to see an item before you order it, and/or you'll be complaining about the walmartization of cities that destroy local mom n pop stores. I know way to many people who complain about $4.50 cables costing $40 at brick n mortar and buying online, and then complain about lack of good jobs locally.
Actually the net levels the playing field. Brick and mortar stores can only sell locally but open an online store and you can sell anywhere. Partner with an big online seller and marketing will be easier.
I actually think this is a very fair move. While I'm not going to enjoy paying the CA sales tax it will at least narrow the gap that makes it so hard for brick and mortar shops to compete with online giants like Amazon. Many people buy produce at farmers markets to support local business, why shouldn't the same apply to buying electronics, books and everything else.
BS!!! Amazon has the money and can afford accountants and programmers to make sure they collect the correct amount of sales tax. I've known a number of owners of small brick and mortar stores who took their stores online. They will be who's hurt if they're forced to collect sales taxes.
Many people buy produce at farmers markets to support local business, why shouldn't the same apply to buying electronics, books and everything else.
More BS. I'm a member of two co-ops that support other local businesses. I joined because I want to support local businesses too. However I also have to live with a budget. I am on disability and don't work however I have not received the full amount of my disability in a long tyme. Some months the only money I get is money my sister gives me. So I have to watch my budget, just as the government should. Last fall I did some of my shopping at farmers' markets simply because they were cheaper than most other places. To keep my food costs low I plant a postage stamp sized garden but it gets little full-sun. This year I'll try to get a plot in one or more local community gardens, but will the food I grow save me enough to pay the rent for the plots? With large enough sunlit space gardening is terrific but I think I'll still rely on Sam's Club and am planning on ordering from Amazon too if prices are lower.
All you need is a 3 column database for fuck's sake. Zip code. Tax rate. Effective date.
More horse shit. Some localities tax things other do not. A table of what is and isn't taxed would have to exist for everywhere. That bottle of soda? It's taxed some places but not others. The same with some foods, clothes, and other items.
Don't even think it's only Democrats that raise taxes, or you will be school in tax history.
Despite what others say Bush also raised taxes. Using data from the IRS [.xls] the "the top 1% of taxpayers - not only forked over a trillion dollars more to Uncle Sam under Bush than under Clinton, their share of the income tax burden increased from 33% to 38%."
Personally I say we get rid of personal income tax and replace it with a national sales tax as well as use taxes. Clothing, food, medicine, and other necessities of life would not be taxed but other things would be. Cars, computers, DVD movies, and such would be. And the use tax, as an example the miles a car is driven is taxed. Of course some would then say the government does not have enough revenue, to which I say revenue is not the problem, spending is the problem.
They couldn't even muster the votes to kill the utterly irresponsible Bush tax cuts.
Except according to the IRS the wealthy top 1% increased the taxes they paid by more than a trillion dollars, they increased their burden from 33% to 38%. Boy oh boy that sounds really irresponsible. NOT!!!
But why is a Federal law needed here? Don't some states already require online retailers to collect sales tax?
Ignorant of the law too? The Internet Tax Freedom Act was signed by President Clinton in 1998 required states and local government to use use taxes for purchases made on the net. In some states when tax payers file for state income tax they are supposed to declare what purchases they made.
Of course if people had read the article linked to they would have learned that. I know it's too much to expect people to read articles but I wish they would before making stupid posts.
Bush cut taxes for the rich? Not according to the IRS [.xls]. Under Bush only the poor paid less in taxes, the wealthy paid more. The top 1% of taxpayers "not only forked over a trillion dollars more to Uncle Sam under Bush than under Clinton, their share of the income tax burden increased from 33% to 38%."
It has been pointed out that a small percent, like 1% or 1.5% would generate a lot of revenue - at some point they have to find a way to offset the fat tax cut the GOP fought hard for for the rich. Cutting spending is one thing, but cutting revenue before you cut spending is cutting your wrists.
Government revenue isn't the problem, government spending IS!!!
And if you talk about raising the tax the wealthy pay, then you may every well reduce revenue not increase it. In economics the Laffer Curve shows beyond a point raising taxes is counter productive. Why oh why should anyone worker harder to make less money? Why shouldn't productive members become just as unproductive as those they're forced to support?
I could almost get behind charging the appropriate sales tax for the state (and/or city, whatever) the SELLER is located in - that's a single set of rules that the seller is undoubtedly already familiar with.
So, move to the location with the lowest tax. I'm sure both Canada and Mexico would welcome more businesses moving there. Oh I see you talk about moving. And what if the seller is located in more than one city? State? Heck even nation.
Of course the Republicans didn't spend more the past two years, they weren't in power! (Having the house doesn't count, as that's more of a stalemate)
Sometimes I get quite amazed at how stupid people in the US really are.
Same here, I too am quite amazed how stupid people in the US are. Obama has only had control over the budget this year. Last year's budget, 2010, was signed into law by Obama's predecessor, Bush. See the blog post Bush’s Huge Budget Numbers Blamed on Obama on Ludwig von Mises Institute website. And in case you want to call it a left wing supporter of Obama, the institute is a Libertarian "academic organization engaged in research and scholarship in the fields of economics, philosophy and political economy" based on the Austrian School of Economics' Ludwig von Mises. As such they support free trade, which Obama opposes. Of course Bush opposed free trade too as has every president since before FDR..
A Democrat in favor of increased taxes - is there a person on the planet who's actually surprised by this?
Nope. We've got tax-and-spend Democrats, and don't-tax-and-spend-more Republicans.
What we've got and what's constitutional are different beasts. We've got big government granting monopolies to big businesses. We've got big bureaucracies that want to expand their power, and politicians who want to create more bureaucracies. Yet if searched for in the Constitution of the USA there is no basis for many of them. Both major political parties are to blame, there are only a few differences between them. Both want bigger government, the difference is that Democrats want big wealth-fare programs and want to tax businesses to death while Republicans want a big military and police while subsidizing large corporations and telling people what they can and can not do in private.
Oh and it was newly elected Republicans who fought to decrease spending recently, all that "shutting down government" BS. Democrats wanted to spend more than Republicans were willing to spend. But of course Democrat supporters like to twist facts, blame everything on Republicans.
With the number of lawsuits the music industry has filed against people I hate to say it, but this is one lawsuit I'd love for them to file. And then have Amazon file a counter lawsuit, and win. Copyrights and copyright laws have been way out there, in outer space, for too long and need to be grounded.
Slashdot Mirror
problems
As are you. In her book "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression" the political economist Amity Shlaes argues FDR's economic policies lengthened the Great Depression. Economist Milton Friedman goes further, he argues "The Great Depression Could Have Been Avoided if the Fed Had Not So Badly Botched Its Monetary Policy". Why the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act practically shutdown international trade in 1930. In retaliation other nations passed their own protectionist and anti-trade laws. The US was a great exporter but new tariffs drove US employers out of business.
the only entity that can truly stimulate demand is government.
Again BS!!! If you're so dense you believe that then how do you explain Al Capone and all the other MAFIA figures who became rich, and dead, during Prohibition and the War on Drugs going on now? No, people stimulate demand by wanting to buy, and by having the money to do so. People will even steal from others to get the money. Witness the gangland warfare south of the US/Mexican border, which is spilling over into the US. Legal, and taxed, drugs would end most of the violence. And releasing all those non-violent drug offenders will turn them from a drain on taxes to tax payers.
Falcon
Well, taxes on the wealthy are at pre-Depression era lows
Well, the wealthy already pay most of the taxes in the US. How much do the rich pay? The top 1% paid 28% of all federal taxes and the top 10% paid 55%. Here's a webpage with links to IRS spreadsheet tables "by Tax Rate and Income Percentile".
Social Security (which does not add a single penny to the deficit) and Medicare are on the chopping block
Two things about this, one is what is true today will not be true in the future. Today there are something like 3.3 people working and paying into Social Security (SS) for every person collecting SS. In 1950 the ratio was 16 | 1 By 2025 it will be 2 |1. If you take the last Baby boomers as being born in 1964, they will retire in 2029 if the retirement age is not raised. The second issue is that if the money workers had paid into SS had been invested in the financial markets, yes Wall Street as well as other places, those workers would have come out ahead. Looking at the historical data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average since 1900 only once has there been a 10 year period in which the average low lower at the end, during the Great Depression. Social Security was created as a consequence, as a safety net. People were still expected to invest while they worked. And with Medicare, I'd rather the government give people money to buy the health insurance they want in a free market than how it is now.
rather than say even one damn dollar of the out-of-control defense budget. If you wanted to talk about "runaway" programs, that is.
I have advocated cutting defense spending too. There isn't a place where the feds spend I have not advocated spending cuts. Hell I've advocate abolishing entire agencies, bureaus, and departments. Not only have I advocated getting rid of the office of the Drug czar, Drug Enforcement Administration or DEA, and others I have advocated legalizing and taxing marijuana and other illegal drugs.
And no, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. I used to, I got a kick out of the lies and distortions he told. I don't support any of the Tea parties either, they don't want to be told what to do but they sure want to tell others what they can and can not do.
Falcon
People who ride bikes often complain about lack of bike lanes, but rarely ask for an annual assessment on bicycles to cover the cost of those lanes and maintenance.
Hell vehicle drivers don't pay for the cost of roads, try to tell people their fuel tax is going to be raised and see what happens. The US has among the lowest gasoline and diesel fuel costs because the taxes on them are among the lowest in the world. If drivers don't pay their full costs why should bike riders pay, especially when cars, SUVs, and trucks cause much more wear and tear on roads?
I've proposed before and will again now how to pay for roads. Raise the fuel tax as well as a tax on tires, so bikers pay too, but lower income tax. If the average person sees their fuel cost rise $100 a month cost their income tax $100 a month. Those who don't have income tax, or have enough income tax to cover it, deducted from their pay then give them a credit. For cash and food support, ie Food Stamps (oops it's now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), governments give recipients Electronic Benefit Transfer or EBT cards. These cards are used like credit and debit cards with many stores accepting them. Just add the credit to the EBT cards.
Fuel tax may only pay part of road maintenance costs, so also start a mileage fee. Every year car owners have to renew their license plate tags, well when they do have the car's miles driven recorded and have a fee due based on that. Then those who own more fuel efficient cars will pay some too. An added benefit to higher fuel costs is that it can spur people to get more fuel efficient vehicles thus reducing the use of fossil fuels.
Falcon
Obviously you didn't read mine, otherwise you would not have asked that. That or you're trolling.
Falcon
My mistake, Obama was responsible for the budget for 2 years. However Bush was responsible for 8 years during which the budget and deficit ballooned while government expanded.
Note also that, technically, the Congress does the budget.
Note that the House of Representatives creates the budget but nothing stops either the president or the Senate from proposing a budget too. However it doesn't matter to me, they are all responsible for over spending and putting the federal government outside Constitutional limits. That includes Democrats and Republicans, the opposite sides of the same coin. All they disagree on is what part of government will be bigger as well as how they'll interfere with the economy.
Falcon
The tax on a car would be just as much as the cost if your scenario came true. It simply would not work.
BS! Revenue is not the problem, spending is. And a federal government within the limits put on it by the Constitution of the USA would be much smaller than it is now. Hundreds of billions of dollars going to the military? The USA's Founding Fathers feared a standing army. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD? Where is the constitutional authority for it? Department of Agriculture? What's the authority for it? And why does it have to be a separate cabinet department and post than the Department of the Interior? The same for the authority of the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, and the Department of Homeland Security?
James Madison said this of standing armies:
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
That webpage has other choice quotes on standing armies from other founding fathers. Madison also had choice words about government not having limited powers. And don't try to use the general welfare clause, Madison dealt with that too saying:
"With respect to the words of general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one ..."
Quite simply, by reducing the size of the federal government to put it within the limits put on it by the Constitution federal spending would be cut dramatically. Each state could then be used as a laboratory and experimented with to find what works best. States could do the same and devolve power to localities, to cities, counties, and parishes.
Don't tell me what I outlined before will not work. If you want to convince me provide facts not opinions.
Falcon
It's a mix of a monolithic country like France or England
Yes and no. Neither England nor France is as monolithic as many believe. Here's a list of Languages of France. Breton is a Celtic language spoken in Brittany in the north-west of France. Other Celtic languages are spoken on down the Atlantic coast to Spain. Meanwhile the Basque Language is Euskara. And though this list of languages is for the UK some of the languages listed are used in England.
In this way they, and other European nations, resemble the United States. The American Indian tribes have their own languages.
Falcon
at the time the founders wrote, customs duties - stuff coming off a ship
Yea, and they threw a tea party, the Boston Tea Party.
Falcon
I agree there are many reasons why Amazon is successful without tax coming into it. That's one of the reasons I feel Amazon doesn't need the extra advantage of not having the charge sales tax. I realize that making Amazon et al. charge state tax won't level the playing field entirely (or even much at all), but it is one step to equalizing opportunity between physical and virtual retailers.
What's stopping those physical retailers from going online? Only their unwillingness. Back in the mid '90s I knew 2 people who owned different local bookstores and they both opened virtual stores. One of them sold her physical store a few months later, her virtual store was making more money with less work and someone else bought the physical store. I'm not sure how the other store is doing but it's still online and with a meeting room it was a popular place to meet and have classes or such.
Falcon
That state is providing infrastructure to the customer... maintaining roads, providing schools, what have you.
Building roads may be paid for with property tax, then road maintenance should be paid for by drivers. Require owners to pay a fee depending on how many miles they drive. An easy way to do this is to pay when the license tags are renewed each year. When renewed the odometer is read then how many mile were driven is calculated, just subtract the previous year's odometer reading. Then say 1000 mile driven costs $10 so driving 10,000 will cost $100. Of course this is in addition to the fuel tax.
Providing schools is paid for with property tax as is the fire department, police, and rescue. The rest of "what have you" I don't know about.
Falcon
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/46020-hit-print--how-one-bookstore-uses-its-espresso-book-machine.html
Interesting, I like it. However it's really only good for old out of print collectables and such. A printer can print books cheaper than that can. What I've proposed before is to have a pdf available for download then offer a craft printed and signed edition as well. I would like to start a business as a photographer and thought about doing something like it. In wedding photography photographers have started offering crafted books of wedding photographs and they seem popular. School and little league sports is another area this can be done, parents have been willing to higher and pay photographers to photograph their little athletes, though I don't know how business has been going since the recession started.
Falcon
If you don't take your store online that's your fault. Amazon helps you sell online. As does eBay. A couple of weeks ago I placed an order with Amazon, and will place another in the next couple of days, and the items come from other businesses. J&R Music and Computer World is one of Amazon's stores. Etsy is a community and market place for artists, deviantART is another. And obviously the net makes it easier to find jobs whether permanent full-time employment or short term contract work.
Pretty soon, brick n mortar stores will die off and you'll never be able to see an item before you order it, and/or you'll be complaining about the walmartization of cities that destroy local mom n pop stores. I know way to many people who complain about $4.50 cables costing $40 at brick n mortar and buying online, and then complain about lack of good jobs locally.
Actually the net levels the playing field. Brick and mortar stores can only sell locally but open an online store and you can sell anywhere. Partner with an big online seller and marketing will be easier.
Falcon
No, it would be better to eliminate income tax entirely. Tax what people consume not what they work to earn.
Falcon
I actually think this is a very fair move. While I'm not going to enjoy paying the CA sales tax it will at least narrow the gap that makes it so hard for brick and mortar shops to compete with online giants like Amazon. Many people buy produce at farmers markets to support local business, why shouldn't the same apply to buying electronics, books and everything else.
BS!!! Amazon has the money and can afford accountants and programmers to make sure they collect the correct amount of sales tax. I've known a number of owners of small brick and mortar stores who took their stores online. They will be who's hurt if they're forced to collect sales taxes.
Many people buy produce at farmers markets to support local business, why shouldn't the same apply to buying electronics, books and everything else.
More BS. I'm a member of two co-ops that support other local businesses. I joined because I want to support local businesses too. However I also have to live with a budget. I am on disability and don't work however I have not received the full amount of my disability in a long tyme. Some months the only money I get is money my sister gives me. So I have to watch my budget, just as the government should. Last fall I did some of my shopping at farmers' markets simply because they were cheaper than most other places. To keep my food costs low I plant a postage stamp sized garden but it gets little full-sun. This year I'll try to get a plot in one or more local community gardens, but will the food I grow save me enough to pay the rent for the plots? With large enough sunlit space gardening is terrific but I think I'll still rely on Sam's Club and am planning on ordering from Amazon too if prices are lower.
Falcon
Thats the job of a Senator, to work for the interests of the State they represent.
They shouldn't care one bit about what the people of the US want, just what is in their State's best interest.
Nope, the people not the state elects senators.
Falcon
All you need is a 3 column database for fuck's sake. Zip code. Tax rate. Effective date.
More horse shit. Some localities tax things other do not. A table of what is and isn't taxed would have to exist for everywhere. That bottle of soda? It's taxed some places but not others. The same with some foods, clothes, and other items.
Falcon
Don't even think it's only Democrats that raise taxes, or you will be school in tax history.
Despite what others say Bush also raised taxes. Using data from the IRS [.xls] the "the top 1% of taxpayers - not only forked over a trillion dollars more to Uncle Sam under Bush than under Clinton, their share of the income tax burden increased from 33% to 38%."
Personally I say we get rid of personal income tax and replace it with a national sales tax as well as use taxes. Clothing, food, medicine, and other necessities of life would not be taxed but other things would be. Cars, computers, DVD movies, and such would be. And the use tax, as an example the miles a car is driven is taxed. Of course some would then say the government does not have enough revenue, to which I say revenue is not the problem, spending is the problem.
Falcon
They couldn't even muster the votes to kill the utterly irresponsible Bush tax cuts.
Except according to the IRS the wealthy top 1% increased the taxes they paid by more than a trillion dollars, they increased their burden from 33% to 38%. Boy oh boy that sounds really irresponsible. NOT!!!
But why is a Federal law needed here? Don't some states already require online retailers to collect sales tax?
Ignorant of the law too? The Internet Tax Freedom Act was signed by President Clinton in 1998 required states and local government to use use taxes for purchases made on the net. In some states when tax payers file for state income tax they are supposed to declare what purchases they made.
Of course if people had read the article linked to they would have learned that. I know it's too much to expect people to read articles but I wish they would before making stupid posts.
Falcon
Bush cut taxes
Bush cut taxes for the rich? Not according to the IRS [.xls]. Under Bush only the poor paid less in taxes, the wealthy paid more. The top 1% of taxpayers "not only forked over a trillion dollars more to Uncle Sam under Bush than under Clinton, their share of the income tax burden increased from 33% to 38%."
Falcon
It has been pointed out that a small percent, like 1% or 1.5% would generate a lot of revenue - at some point they have to find a way to offset the fat tax cut the GOP fought hard for for the rich. Cutting spending is one thing, but cutting revenue before you cut spending is cutting your wrists.
Government revenue isn't the problem, government spending IS!!!
And if you talk about raising the tax the wealthy pay, then you may every well reduce revenue not increase it. In economics the Laffer Curve shows beyond a point raising taxes is counter productive. Why oh why should anyone worker harder to make less money? Why shouldn't productive members become just as unproductive as those they're forced to support?
Falcon
Who is John Galt?
I could almost get behind charging the appropriate sales tax for the state (and/or city, whatever) the SELLER is located in - that's a single set of rules that the seller is undoubtedly already familiar with.
So, move to the location with the lowest tax. I'm sure both Canada and Mexico would welcome more businesses moving there. Oh I see you talk about moving. And what if the seller is located in more than one city? State? Heck even nation.
Falcon
Of course the Republicans didn't spend more the past two years, they weren't in power! (Having the house doesn't count, as that's more of a stalemate) Sometimes I get quite amazed at how stupid people in the US really are.
Same here, I too am quite amazed how stupid people in the US are. Obama has only had control over the budget this year. Last year's budget, 2010, was signed into law by Obama's predecessor, Bush. See the blog post Bush’s Huge Budget Numbers Blamed on Obama on Ludwig von Mises Institute website. And in case you want to call it a left wing supporter of Obama, the institute is a Libertarian "academic organization engaged in research and scholarship in the fields of economics, philosophy and political economy" based on the Austrian School of Economics' Ludwig von Mises. As such they support free trade, which Obama opposes. Of course Bush opposed free trade too as has every president since before FDR..
Falcon
A Democrat in favor of increased taxes - is there a person on the planet who's actually surprised by this?
Nope. We've got tax-and-spend Democrats, and don't-tax-and-spend-more Republicans.
What we've got and what's constitutional are different beasts. We've got big government granting monopolies to big businesses. We've got big bureaucracies that want to expand their power, and politicians who want to create more bureaucracies. Yet if searched for in the Constitution of the USA there is no basis for many of them. Both major political parties are to blame, there are only a few differences between them. Both want bigger government, the difference is that Democrats want big wealth-fare programs and want to tax businesses to death while Republicans want a big military and police while subsidizing large corporations and telling people what they can and can not do in private.
Oh and it was newly elected Republicans who fought to decrease spending recently, all that "shutting down government" BS. Democrats wanted to spend more than Republicans were willing to spend. But of course Democrat supporters like to twist facts, blame everything on Republicans.
Falcon
Amazon's Cloud Player?
With the number of lawsuits the music industry has filed against people I hate to say it, but this is one lawsuit I'd love for them to file. And then have Amazon file a counter lawsuit, and win. Copyrights and copyright laws have been way out there, in outer space, for too long and need to be grounded.
Falcon
Mind you, I don't have cable TV. How closed minded is that?? ;)
Cable TV not needed for Fox News. There are over the air-waves Fox radio and TV stations.
Falcon