It's too late now. The boomers are already retiring, and it isn't right to pull the rug out from underneath them after the government has been promising them their money back
Depends on who you think was responsible for the Governments actions that allowed/forced SS to become insolvent. It is my understanding that the boomers elected the Congressmen who decided that they could borrow the surpluses of SS and did nothing to reverse or stop it. They were in control then (as voters) and allowed the politicians to ransack all the money they paid in. Now that it is time to collect, they want the next generation(s) to pay more to cover their mistakes and shore up their losses? I think not. It's time people learned the hard way (as it is the only way) what happens when you believe promises from politicians, when you blindly trust their judgement and let them do whatever they want - you get screwed. It's time for the boomers to take what's coming to them for letting the Government recklessly borrow and spend this country into oblivion. The example set should, hopefully, teach the younger folks how not to trust the Government or believe anything they tell you.
Additionally, they could probably solve the problem with SS in a couple easy steps:
1) Pass a law/constitutional amendment that no longer allow SS funds to be borrowed. They must stay in the separate fund until they are needed by SS. 2) Once that is passed, immediately pay back every penny borrowed from the fund. Supposedly, this debt is already figured into the total National Debt so the end result is a wash and we will owe the same amount of money to someone else, namely The Fed. 3) Eliminate the cap on SS taxes. There is no reason the rich get a pass on this tax on all dollars earned after 150k (or whatever it is now). All income, at all levels, should be taxed the same.
Occupy wall street needs a lot more open carry protesters with rifles, shotguns and very obvious-ally armed to the teeth. Suddenly the cops will be polite and obey the constitution.
But then it will cease to be peaceful and lose all Constitutional protections. The difference is the Tea Party petitioned the Government and followed the rules and were largely ignored or downplayed by the media. These people are petitioning "The Rich", aren't following the rules (you don't move in when you protest. You have have alternating shifts if you want a presence 24/7), aren't following the laws (robbery, assault, rape) and are, in some cases, generally engaging is lawless behavior. Of course they are getting media attention because it is a liberal protest, but it is not how one peacefully protests.
It's a clear attempt to sabotage the entire right to assemble/protest.
But they are not protesting the Government which is your Constitutional Right to do. They are protesting, um, well, rich people I guess. The fact is that they should be protesting the Government and not private Corporations who have no obligation to listen to or accommodate them.
You mean, just because I observe a crime being committed, and fail to take initiative to run to the cops to report it, that I could be charged with a crime?
Yes, I believe you can: anything from obstruction of justice up towards being an accomplice to the crime itself. Whether you actually would or not is another matter and largely depends on how much of a dick you were to the cops about it when they find out you knew and said nothing. We don't live by mob rules, where no one ever sees anything.
I think his point is: if you are using the park for normal activities, hiking, biking, campingg, etc. then you are to follow the rules of the park. There can be little debate about that. However, if you are using public land specifically and exclusively to "peacefully assemble to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" than you are using the land in a constitutionally protected way and they should not be able to force you to leave. Otherwise, what the hell was the point of including that in the amendment.
The issue with the Occupy Protests is that they are not petitioning the Government (which is what they should be doing) they are petitioning private businesses which have no obligation to accommodate them.
my vote is "for" the least of evils, and more often "against" the greater.
Meaning you knowingly and willingly support evil. Since there is always more than two candidates in a Presidential race, you cannot vote against someone. You can only vote forsomeone. If you think none of the candidates are suitable for the job then you write the name of the person you feel is qualified on the ballot, including yourself. Reversing this completely incorrect notion of "Voting Against" will go a long way in getting competent people elected instead of everyone falsely believing they have to choose between two incompetent tools; one in a blue shirt, one in a red one.
Rent is still taxes as income for the person that receives it. Whether the tax is placed before the price is advertised or after is unimportant. Wrong again.
No, I am not wrong. We were talking about taxes on the poor and replacing an income tax with a sales tax and comparing which would be better. No Income Tax means no Income Tax on all parties. So, please explain where this magical income tax came from? Also, the income tax would be assessed on the landlord (who usually is not poor) so it does not affect the poor person's tax liability.
First off rent isn't a sale, is not covered by sales tax and is usually the largest single expense of the poor. So let's redo your example using real numbers and compare the tax liability of a poor person paying a flat sales tax versus a flat income tax and you tell me which one the poor would/should prefer:
Poor person Income: $15,000
Spending on Rent: $550/Month x 12 Months = $6,600
Spending on Purchases: $7,036
Sales Tax Rate: 10%
Sales Tax: $703.60
Sales Tax as % of income: 4.7% (less than the rich person you mentioned)
Income Tax Rate: 9%
Income Tax: $1,350
I fail to see how a Sales Tax in this scenario (where the poor pay taxes like everyone else) is harmful to the poor. It is actually better for them. Sure, it may also lessens the burden on the Rich but that is lessened by the fact that most of the current loopholes that exist already lessen their burden considerably. Besides making any comparison between the taxes paid as a percentage of income between a Rich and a Poor person is misleading. In your example the rich person paid 6% (not the 5.5% you quoted) of his income, which is 2/3 of the percentage of the poor person in your flawed example but they paid over 4 times the amount of tax. A smaller percentage of a much larger number is still a larger amount of tax usually by a multiple. This is why you never look at percentages without also looking at the actual numbers themselves.
Want a better example: watch the animated Clerk series. In one of the episodes a big mega-store is putting the small corner convenience store out of business. Then one day, after weeks of no sales, the clerks actually sell something. The assistant to the mega-store's boss comes running into his office exclaiming that the corner store increased their sales by 10,000% in a single day. The boss is now convinced that the clerks running that store are geniuses which they are not, he just doesn't fully understand percentages.
Actually if I order from a CA retailer, I believe I do pay CA sales tax as all sales in that state are subject to sales tax. But if I'm in MA when I do it, which also charges Sales Tax, who should get the tax? MA, CA or both?
It's really quite simple: Rich people spend less in proportion to their income than do poor people. As such, sales taxes are a greater burden on the poor than the rich.
Okay, you took a round-about way of saying it but lets look at it this way when comparing a straight, fair, flat income tax to a straight, fair, flat sales tax (for apples-to-apples) - For an Income Tax the poor pay a percentage of their entire income. For a Sales Tax, the poor pay a percentage of the income they spend. Which is better for the poor? The Sales Tax, obviously because there is a very likely chance that poor won't spend every penny. It is also better for the Rich, for the same reason.
From what I've heard you're saying it's better to tax the poor more because you'll also tax the rich more.
That may be correct, I don't have the time to look it up but from what I remember reading on MA tax return is the tax is for any purchases made of out of state for items that will be used in the state. I didn't see any exceptions but that may have been on another form if you are itemizing deductions. I never cheat though - I use their little calculator that says if I pay their estimate amount based on my income, I have satisfied the tax. It always works in my favor and my taxes are clean.
I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing or just commenting. Just because people are poor does not mean they shouldn't have to pay taxes. That is wrong, unfair and unsustainable. Everyone should have to pay taxes so everyone has a horse in the race when it comes to politicians wanting to spend more money. Especially since the poor utilize most of the services provided by those taxes. The way it is now, the poor are all for higher income taxes (as they don't pay them) and having more social services funded with that money (because that's the money they receive). As soon as you try to tax them for anything they cry regressive tax - you're taxing the poor and not the rich, even when the tax applies to them both equally.
If you want a class/section of the Country to not have to pay taxes, then they should also not be able to vote. No taxes, no vote. If they want to vote, then they can voluntarily pay taxes and vote.
The existence of loopholes is not a point in favor of sales tax, but rather a problem that needs addressing.
Since the existence on loopholes in inevitable with income taxes but pretty difficult/ineffective with sales taxes, yes it is.
was in reference to the fact that taxes from retail sales constitute less of a rich person's total income than the total income of those who aren't rich
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Maybe if you used some hypothetical numbers to illustrate your point it would be more clear.
I hope you're not falling for the logical fallacy that the Poor & Middle-Classes paying the vast majority of the taxes is a bad thing. This is inevitable as they represent the majority of the population. The other aspect you neglect to consider is that Corporations buy lots of stuff and this money is deducted from their income as expenses and not taxed via income taxes. With a sales tax, they wouldn't be able to dodge paying taxes by spending money on stuff they marginally need.
The problem is MA can't change Sales Tax on an item purchased in CA, it doesn't have the authority as the sale was not made in its jurisdiction. It also can't burden a retailer in another state to collect its taxes. This is by design and how it is supposed to work.
If your state is losing business to another state because of differences in Sales Tax, then it is up to you to adjust your taxes to encourage business in your state. Another issue is, both states think they are entitled to the Sales Tax, both the Point-of-Sale and the Destination. When you have two states who charge Sales Tax, who gets it or is it a double tax? Once you figure out who is entitled in that case, it should carry over to when one state imposes a tax and the other doesn't.
It penalizes those who cannot afford to save (the poor) and assists those who already save a significant portion of their income (the rich).
No, it doesn't. It doesn't penalize anyone or assist anyone, it is the same for everyone which is the point. An income tax on the poor hurts them just as much as a sales tax. The only difference is the income tax is taken before they receive the money and they have no choices to avoid it and really don't even get to see or feel how much it costs (one of the reasons income tax is taken directly before you get paid. If you actually had to pay the bill after you had the money, most people wouldn't or would be complaining very loudly at how expensive the taxes really are). A sales tax, on the other hand, they have some choice in how much they are going to pay.
What I think you were trying to say is that a Sales Tax is regressive when compared to an Income Tax that the poor do not have to pay. Which when looked at that way, makes every tax that the poor have to pay, regressive.
Relative to how much they make, sales taxes affect the rich least of all.
Bold assumption you make there. It completely ignores all of the income-tax deductions/loop-holes that allow "the rich" to artificially lower their gross income to those of the middle-class. I know from personal experience that someone who makes almost double then me is able to get his adjustable gross income lower than me because he can take deductions and itemize his taxes and I cannot.
The other thing you miss, and most other people miss, is the difference between the Rich (Upper Middle-Class) and the Wealthy (Super Rich). The upper middle-class work a job and collect a salary like the rest of the middle class, but they are not the Wealthy/Super-Rich everyone says should be paying more. The Wealthy on the other hand do not work a job and collect a salary. In a lot of instances all the money they have, they have always had, so it cannot be taxed away from them as it is not income. The point I'm trying to make is that the Rich and the Super-Rich have ways and means to shuffle their income around to avoid income taxes. They have money to pay lobbyists to get tax loopholes imposed that help them. They have money to pay accountants and lawyers to find and utilize these loopholes. The easiest/only way to tax these people (and to tax everyone fairly) is to tax them when they spend their money. And they spend more money than the middle & low class, probably combined. You seem to think taxing their spending would cause them to stop spending, but it won't. That's the whole point of being Rich/Super-Rich, having money to spend and enjoying spending it.
As far as anyone calling Cain's 999 plan regressive let me just say this: I am a typical middle-class earner (part of the group everyone agrees needs help) and his plan would save me easily 7% of my gross income if I spend every penny I make. However, since I don't spend that much, I would save considerably more. The only people that this really hurts are the ones that either pay zero federal tax or less (get more back then they paid in). And, personally, I believe we are all in this together and everyone should pay something especially since the ones who pay the least typically receive the most in services and the ones who pay the most receive the least.
While I agree with you I don't think this is what the states want. If I live in CT and buy something from an online retailer in CA, the state of CT doesn't want that sales tax going to CA they want their 'use' tax.
And, legally, you are obligated to pay both. So don't blame the out-of-state retailer for your tax cheating, blame yourself.
My real feeling is tough nookie though because CT provided zero services to the CA merchant who is selling the goods. CA provided all the services to the merchant and is therefore the only party entitled to collect tax. Like I said in a previous post, this is competition between states. You want the merchants in your state to have a level playing field with an out-of-state merchant, match the other, competing state's sales tax. Otherwise, you are just whining about a problem you, yourself (as a state/local government) created.
Why should you be allowed to avoid your local sales tax/use tax by buying online.
For the same the reason you can avoid them by driving out of town/state, because the other state (where the sale is actually made) doesn't impose them. This has to do with competition between states and if you want your state to be more competitive, eliminate or reduce the sales tax.
Not to mention, that all states (I believe) already have a "Use Tax" which is imposed on purchases made out of state/town/country that the state would have charged sales tax on. So the mechanism for collecting these taxes is already there.
One is ostensibly a body created by and for The People, and the other is a generally unaccountable organization dedicated to getting the most profit at any expense?
Wait... You think the DOE is not necessary anymore with the looming energy crisis and all the talks about global warming? And when is education ever NOT necessary?..
On top of that, all of this is just cents compared to the overall budget, yet the sacred cows like the DOD never get cut.
The DOD doesn't get cut because it is one of the few things the Federal Government is supposed to do . These things are good but are implemented at the wrong level, these should be covered by local/state government. The DOE is an abysmal failure if you look at what the Department was founded to do, decrease our dependance on foreign energy. It has not done that, at all and should be de-funded for failing to accomplish its mission. But as with everything in the Federal Government, no one knows what anyone else is supposed to be doing, so we've had new Federal Agencies/Departments proposed to do what? Decrease our dependance on Foreign Energy. Gut it all and start building back only what you need to survive.
Um, not for nothing, but I believe those who believe all teachers are predatory pedophiles just waiting for a chance to strike their poor helpless children are more likely to be liberal whiners who love Obama.
Simple question - Why do teachers who work in the same building the students are in some 200 days a year and can interact with them in person, in private, on campus NEED the ability to interact with students secretly on social media websites?
Because it is both their as well as their students' inalienable right to. Free speech, you know. Have you heard of it? The fact that it can be used for nefarious things is understood and agreed to be an acceptable risk. If you disagree with this fundamental notion, then please move to another country more in line with your thoughts and desire for authoritarian control.
Not to mention this law prevented communication with current as well as former students. You know, even after they grow up and become adults capable of making their own decisions. It was a bad law, which was obviously in violation of the 1st amendment and was rightly repealed.
Well they also can't prove that "You", personally, of sound mind, agreed to this condition. They do not have your signature. They do not have a witness to your signature. They just have the notion that "Someone" with access to your account, legitimately or not, agreed to said provision, maybe, if they didn't accidentally hit the wrong button. Really they only have your PS3 agreeing to not bring a class action lawsuit against them and even then I think they'd be hard pressed to prove it was your specific PS3 that agreed.
Slashdot Mirror
It's too late now. The boomers are already retiring, and it isn't right to pull the rug out from underneath them after the government has been promising them their money back
Depends on who you think was responsible for the Governments actions that allowed/forced SS to become insolvent. It is my understanding that the boomers elected the Congressmen who decided that they could borrow the surpluses of SS and did nothing to reverse or stop it. They were in control then (as voters) and allowed the politicians to ransack all the money they paid in. Now that it is time to collect, they want the next generation(s) to pay more to cover their mistakes and shore up their losses? I think not. It's time people learned the hard way (as it is the only way) what happens when you believe promises from politicians, when you blindly trust their judgement and let them do whatever they want - you get screwed. It's time for the boomers to take what's coming to them for letting the Government recklessly borrow and spend this country into oblivion. The example set should, hopefully, teach the younger folks how not to trust the Government or believe anything they tell you.
Additionally, they could probably solve the problem with SS in a couple easy steps:
1) Pass a law/constitutional amendment that no longer allow SS funds to be borrowed. They must stay in the separate fund until they are needed by SS.
2) Once that is passed, immediately pay back every penny borrowed from the fund. Supposedly, this debt is already figured into the total National Debt so the end result is a wash and we will owe the same amount of money to someone else, namely The Fed.
3) Eliminate the cap on SS taxes. There is no reason the rich get a pass on this tax on all dollars earned after 150k (or whatever it is now). All income, at all levels, should be taxed the same.
Occupy wall street needs a lot more open carry protesters with rifles, shotguns and very obvious-ally armed to the teeth. Suddenly the cops will be polite and obey the constitution.
But then it will cease to be peaceful and lose all Constitutional protections. The difference is the Tea Party petitioned the Government and followed the rules and were largely ignored or downplayed by the media. These people are petitioning "The Rich", aren't following the rules (you don't move in when you protest. You have have alternating shifts if you want a presence 24/7), aren't following the laws (robbery, assault, rape) and are, in some cases, generally engaging is lawless behavior. Of course they are getting media attention because it is a liberal protest, but it is not how one peacefully protests.
It's a clear attempt to sabotage the entire right to assemble/protest.
But they are not protesting the Government which is your Constitutional Right to do. They are protesting, um, well, rich people I guess. The fact is that they should be protesting the Government and not private Corporations who have no obligation to listen to or accommodate them.
You mean, just because I observe a crime being committed, and fail to take initiative to run to the cops to report it, that I could be charged with a crime?
Yes, I believe you can: anything from obstruction of justice up towards being an accomplice to the crime itself. Whether you actually would or not is another matter and largely depends on how much of a dick you were to the cops about it when they find out you knew and said nothing. We don't live by mob rules, where no one ever sees anything.
The issue with the Occupy Protests is that they are not petitioning the Government (which is what they should be doing) they are petitioning private businesses which have no obligation to accommodate them.
my vote is "for" the least of evils, and more often "against" the greater.
Meaning you knowingly and willingly support evil. Since there is always more than two candidates in a Presidential race, you cannot vote against someone. You can only vote forsomeone. If you think none of the candidates are suitable for the job then you write the name of the person you feel is qualified on the ballot, including yourself. Reversing this completely incorrect notion of "Voting Against" will go a long way in getting competent people elected instead of everyone falsely believing they have to choose between two incompetent tools; one in a blue shirt, one in a red one.
Rent is still taxes as income for the person that receives it. Whether the tax is placed before the price is advertised or after is unimportant. Wrong again.
No, I am not wrong. We were talking about taxes on the poor and replacing an income tax with a sales tax and comparing which would be better. No Income Tax means no Income Tax on all parties. So, please explain where this magical income tax came from? Also, the income tax would be assessed on the landlord (who usually is not poor) so it does not affect the poor person's tax liability.
First off rent isn't a sale, is not covered by sales tax and is usually the largest single expense of the poor. So let's redo your example using real numbers and compare the tax liability of a poor person paying a flat sales tax versus a flat income tax and you tell me which one the poor would/should prefer:
Poor person Income: $15,000
Spending on Rent: $550/Month x 12 Months = $6,600
Spending on Purchases: $7,036
Sales Tax Rate: 10%
Sales Tax: $703.60
Sales Tax as % of income: 4.7% (less than the rich person you mentioned)
Income Tax Rate: 9%
Income Tax: $1,350
I fail to see how a Sales Tax in this scenario (where the poor pay taxes like everyone else) is harmful to the poor. It is actually better for them. Sure, it may also lessens the burden on the Rich but that is lessened by the fact that most of the current loopholes that exist already lessen their burden considerably. Besides making any comparison between the taxes paid as a percentage of income between a Rich and a Poor person is misleading. In your example the rich person paid 6% (not the 5.5% you quoted) of his income, which is 2/3 of the percentage of the poor person in your flawed example but they paid over 4 times the amount of tax. A smaller percentage of a much larger number is still a larger amount of tax usually by a multiple. This is why you never look at percentages without also looking at the actual numbers themselves.
Want a better example: watch the animated Clerk series. In one of the episodes a big mega-store is putting the small corner convenience store out of business. Then one day, after weeks of no sales, the clerks actually sell something. The assistant to the mega-store's boss comes running into his office exclaiming that the corner store increased their sales by 10,000% in a single day. The boss is now convinced that the clerks running that store are geniuses which they are not, he just doesn't fully understand percentages.
Actually if I order from a CA retailer, I believe I do pay CA sales tax as all sales in that state are subject to sales tax. But if I'm in MA when I do it, which also charges Sales Tax, who should get the tax? MA, CA or both?
It's really quite simple: Rich people spend less in proportion to their income than do poor people. As such, sales taxes are a greater burden on the poor than the rich.
Okay, you took a round-about way of saying it but lets look at it this way when comparing a straight, fair, flat income tax to a straight, fair, flat sales tax (for apples-to-apples) - For an Income Tax the poor pay a percentage of their entire income. For a Sales Tax, the poor pay a percentage of the income they spend. Which is better for the poor? The Sales Tax, obviously because there is a very likely chance that poor won't spend every penny. It is also better for the Rich, for the same reason.
From what I've heard you're saying it's better to tax the poor more because you'll also tax the rich more.
That may be correct, I don't have the time to look it up but from what I remember reading on MA tax return is the tax is for any purchases made of out of state for items that will be used in the state. I didn't see any exceptions but that may have been on another form if you are itemizing deductions. I never cheat though - I use their little calculator that says if I pay their estimate amount based on my income, I have satisfied the tax. It always works in my favor and my taxes are clean.
I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing or just commenting. Just because people are poor does not mean they shouldn't have to pay taxes. That is wrong, unfair and unsustainable. Everyone should have to pay taxes so everyone has a horse in the race when it comes to politicians wanting to spend more money. Especially since the poor utilize most of the services provided by those taxes. The way it is now, the poor are all for higher income taxes (as they don't pay them) and having more social services funded with that money (because that's the money they receive). As soon as you try to tax them for anything they cry regressive tax - you're taxing the poor and not the rich, even when the tax applies to them both equally.
If you want a class/section of the Country to not have to pay taxes, then they should also not be able to vote. No taxes, no vote. If they want to vote, then they can voluntarily pay taxes and vote.
The existence of loopholes is not a point in favor of sales tax, but rather a problem that needs addressing.
Since the existence on loopholes in inevitable with income taxes but pretty difficult/ineffective with sales taxes, yes it is.
was in reference to the fact that taxes from retail sales constitute less of a rich person's total income than the total income of those who aren't rich
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Maybe if you used some hypothetical numbers to illustrate your point it would be more clear.
I hope you're not falling for the logical fallacy that the Poor & Middle-Classes paying the vast majority of the taxes is a bad thing. This is inevitable as they represent the majority of the population. The other aspect you neglect to consider is that Corporations buy lots of stuff and this money is deducted from their income as expenses and not taxed via income taxes. With a sales tax, they wouldn't be able to dodge paying taxes by spending money on stuff they marginally need.
The problem is MA can't change Sales Tax on an item purchased in CA, it doesn't have the authority as the sale was not made in its jurisdiction. It also can't burden a retailer in another state to collect its taxes. This is by design and how it is supposed to work.
If your state is losing business to another state because of differences in Sales Tax, then it is up to you to adjust your taxes to encourage business in your state. Another issue is, both states think they are entitled to the Sales Tax, both the Point-of-Sale and the Destination. When you have two states who charge Sales Tax, who gets it or is it a double tax? Once you figure out who is entitled in that case, it should carry over to when one state imposes a tax and the other doesn't.
It penalizes those who cannot afford to save (the poor) and assists those who already save a significant portion of their income (the rich).
No, it doesn't. It doesn't penalize anyone or assist anyone, it is the same for everyone which is the point. An income tax on the poor hurts them just as much as a sales tax. The only difference is the income tax is taken before they receive the money and they have no choices to avoid it and really don't even get to see or feel how much it costs (one of the reasons income tax is taken directly before you get paid. If you actually had to pay the bill after you had the money, most people wouldn't or would be complaining very loudly at how expensive the taxes really are). A sales tax, on the other hand, they have some choice in how much they are going to pay.
What I think you were trying to say is that a Sales Tax is regressive when compared to an Income Tax that the poor do not have to pay. Which when looked at that way, makes every tax that the poor have to pay, regressive.
Relative to how much they make, sales taxes affect the rich least of all.
Bold assumption you make there. It completely ignores all of the income-tax deductions/loop-holes that allow "the rich" to artificially lower their gross income to those of the middle-class. I know from personal experience that someone who makes almost double then me is able to get his adjustable gross income lower than me because he can take deductions and itemize his taxes and I cannot.
The other thing you miss, and most other people miss, is the difference between the Rich (Upper Middle-Class) and the Wealthy (Super Rich). The upper middle-class work a job and collect a salary like the rest of the middle class, but they are not the Wealthy/Super-Rich everyone says should be paying more. The Wealthy on the other hand do not work a job and collect a salary. In a lot of instances all the money they have, they have always had, so it cannot be taxed away from them as it is not income. The point I'm trying to make is that the Rich and the Super-Rich have ways and means to shuffle their income around to avoid income taxes. They have money to pay lobbyists to get tax loopholes imposed that help them. They have money to pay accountants and lawyers to find and utilize these loopholes. The easiest/only way to tax these people (and to tax everyone fairly) is to tax them when they spend their money. And they spend more money than the middle & low class, probably combined. You seem to think taxing their spending would cause them to stop spending, but it won't. That's the whole point of being Rich/Super-Rich, having money to spend and enjoying spending it.
As far as anyone calling Cain's 999 plan regressive let me just say this: I am a typical middle-class earner (part of the group everyone agrees needs help) and his plan would save me easily 7% of my gross income if I spend every penny I make. However, since I don't spend that much, I would save considerably more. The only people that this really hurts are the ones that either pay zero federal tax or less (get more back then they paid in). And, personally, I believe we are all in this together and everyone should pay something especially since the ones who pay the least typically receive the most in services and the ones who pay the most receive the least.
While I agree with you I don't think this is what the states want. If I live in CT and buy something from an online retailer in CA, the state of CT doesn't want that sales tax going to CA they want their 'use' tax.
And, legally, you are obligated to pay both. So don't blame the out-of-state retailer for your tax cheating, blame yourself.
My real feeling is tough nookie though because CT provided zero services to the CA merchant who is selling the goods. CA provided all the services to the merchant and is therefore the only party entitled to collect tax. Like I said in a previous post, this is competition between states. You want the merchants in your state to have a level playing field with an out-of-state merchant, match the other, competing state's sales tax. Otherwise, you are just whining about a problem you, yourself (as a state/local government) created.
Why should you be allowed to avoid your local sales tax/use tax by buying online.
For the same the reason you can avoid them by driving out of town/state, because the other state (where the sale is actually made) doesn't impose them. This has to do with competition between states and if you want your state to be more competitive, eliminate or reduce the sales tax.
Not to mention, that all states (I believe) already have a "Use Tax" which is imposed on purchases made out of state/town/country that the state would have charged sales tax on. So the mechanism for collecting these taxes is already there.
One is ostensibly a body created by and for The People, and the other is a generally unaccountable organization dedicated to getting the most profit at any expense?
No, they are both the second.
And watch how fast our enemies invade us. Great plan!
Wait... You think the DOE is not necessary anymore with the looming energy crisis and all the talks about global warming? And when is education ever NOT necessary?.. On top of that, all of this is just cents compared to the overall budget, yet the sacred cows like the DOD never get cut.
The DOD doesn't get cut because it is one of the few things the Federal Government is supposed to do . These things are good but are implemented at the wrong level, these should be covered by local/state government. The DOE is an abysmal failure if you look at what the Department was founded to do, decrease our dependance on foreign energy. It has not done that, at all and should be de-funded for failing to accomplish its mission. But as with everything in the Federal Government, no one knows what anyone else is supposed to be doing, so we've had new Federal Agencies/Departments proposed to do what? Decrease our dependance on Foreign Energy. Gut it all and start building back only what you need to survive.
Um, not for nothing, but I believe those who believe all teachers are predatory pedophiles just waiting for a chance to strike their poor helpless children are more likely to be liberal whiners who love Obama.
Simple question - Why do teachers who work in the same building the students are in some 200 days a year and can interact with them in person, in private, on campus NEED the ability to interact with students secretly on social media websites?
Because it is both their as well as their students' inalienable right to. Free speech, you know. Have you heard of it? The fact that it can be used for nefarious things is understood and agreed to be an acceptable risk. If you disagree with this fundamental notion, then please move to another country more in line with your thoughts and desire for authoritarian control.
Not to mention this law prevented communication with current as well as former students. You know, even after they grow up and become adults capable of making their own decisions. It was a bad law, which was obviously in violation of the 1st amendment and was rightly repealed.
Well they also can't prove that "You", personally, of sound mind, agreed to this condition. They do not have your signature. They do not have a witness to your signature. They just have the notion that "Someone" with access to your account, legitimately or not, agreed to said provision, maybe, if they didn't accidentally hit the wrong button. Really they only have your PS3 agreeing to not bring a class action lawsuit against them and even then I think they'd be hard pressed to prove it was your specific PS3 that agreed.
Well then you break even and still aren't turning a profit on your time.