White House Endorses Internet Sales Tax

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Read it and weep folks, the White House now says it supports the Internet Sales Tax bill. :(

Although States presently have the authority to tax the sale of goods or services sold from out-of-state vendors, they are prevented under current law from requiring the collection of such duly-enacted taxes. As a consequence, while local small business retailers follow the law and collect sales taxes from customers who make purchases in their stores, many big business online and catalog retailers do not collect the same taxes. Because these out-of-state companies are able to play by a different set of rules, this disparity undermines the ability of cities and States to invest in K-12 education, police and fire protection, access to affordable health care, and funding for roads and bridges. This bill would eliminate the unfair advantage currently enjoyed by big out-of-state online companies over local neighborhood-based small businesses.
Click to expand...
 
As someone who has shifted nearly all of my purchases to Amazon partly because I avoid paying sales tax, I can understand the problem this creates.

This is inevitable, frankly. No one reports these purchases on their taxes like they are supposed to, so what is the alternative?
 
I think it is more of a fairness issue now ... as long as the States get the money and not the Feds I am okay with this ... local business at least stands a fighting chance if all businesses are on the same playing field ... it was definitely unfair for local business to pay tax and internet companies to be exempt ... Amazon will still be the place to go and I plan to renew my Prime for another year

TaxMan-Art-John-Royle.jpg
 
Fix the problem by getting rid of the tax and spending less.
 
Kendrak said:
Fix the problem by getting rid of the tax and spending less.
Click to expand...

Except ironically the Sales tax is one of the more balanced taxes there is ... everybody who buys stuff pays it (including the poor) ... and it is exclusively for your state or city (unlike the federal taxes where some states pay more than they get back in services) ... I would rather see the income taxes go and keep the sales and property taxes (which is what most states with no income tax do) :cool:
 
Increases everywhere, the bills, the fees, the politicians wages and health benefits, but oddly enough not in my wage, which has, over the last 10 years remained static as inflation eats away at it. Sending all those manufacturing jobs to China, for some big anglo profit for a few, didn't help me or other American citizens. It helped Bill Clinton, George Bush, Warren Buffet, et.al increase their profits. The future is going to be more expensive than many will be able to cover. What is left then is violent, but ultimately cleansing.
 
Beowulf said:
Lower the defense budget?
Click to expand...

The for-profit military industry would consider any significant reduction to be too great a shock to the system. At least thats how I've seen it explained by economists and financial minds much smarter than I.

Our defense budget has been a one-way street for a long time now - always expanding, never contracting. The analogy I often hear is like gas expanding to fill the available space.
 
kbrickley said:
Except ironically the Sales tax is one of the more balanced taxes there is ... everybody who buys stuff pays it (including the poor) ... and it is exclusively for your state or city (unlike the federal taxes where some states pay more than they get back in services) ... I would rather see the income taxes go and keep the sales and property taxes (which is what most states with no income tax do) :cool:
Click to expand...

Sales taxes are extremely regressive. We would be better off with less of them. The only problem is the states can't be trusted with an either/or scenario. Trade one for the other and you'll soon have both. Like here in lovely New York.
 
Beowulf said:
Lower the defense budget?
Click to expand...

Pff, are you kidding? Those missles that cost $68,000 a peice don't grow on trees. We couldn't be able to afford to fire 2 of them to kill 1 insurgent without an over-inflated device budget ;) :D :rolleyes:! Think of the 'Freedom TM'
 
If I walk down to a brick and mortar store and buy something, the sales tax goes to my local (city or state) government. If every penny I spend on this internet sales tax goes to my local government, then I can see supporting it. However, I don't see that realistically happening.

I'd rather just buy locally. I like the idea of my money supporting my local economy instead of going off to some huge warehouse company on the other side of the country, or the world.
 
kbrickley said:
it was definitely unfair for local business to pay tax and internet companies to be exempt ...
Click to expand...
1) Local businesses do not pay sales tax on products or services they sell: they collect it.
2) Amazon is not exempt. They play by the same rules as everyone else, online or not.
 
DPI said:
The for-profit military industry would consider any significant reduction to be too great a shock to the system. At least thats how I've seen it explained by economists and financial minds much smarter than I.

Our defense budget has been a one-way street for a long time now - always expanding, never contracting. The analogy I often hear is like gas expanding to fill the available space.
Click to expand...

It also serves a secondary purpose of helping ...fudge...for politicans employment numbers. If your getting paid as a private contractor or getting paid as a solider to kill insurgents in _______, your an american with a job and therefore count towards the employment rate and not 'against'. 3.2 million people are in the DOD's employment or roughly 1% of the US's population....

So if you have say 8% unemployment of say the 150m or so 'eligible' us workers(excluding children under 18, retirees over 65 and the disabled) and you lay off half the military by halving the military budget, you'd end up with another 1% unemployment instantly. Worse yet, you'd have 1.6 million trained, experienced, unemployed, desperate (probable) past-killers among the populace. That to me sounds like a repeat of post war-era Vietnam.
 
Super-D said:
If I walk down to a brick and mortar store and buy something, the sales tax goes to my local (city or state) government. If every penny I spend on this internet sales tax goes to my local government, then I can see supporting it. However, I don't see that realistically happening.

I'd rather just buy locally. I like the idea of my money supporting my local economy instead of going off to some huge warehouse company on the other side of the country, or the world.
Click to expand...

The internet sales tax isn't a new sales tax. It's basically saying that anybody who meets X criteria(which are pretty weak), then you are required to collect the proper sales tax and pay that sales tax to the government that it is required to. Whether that sales tax should go to your state, county, or locality, that all depends on what sales taxes you are charged with.
 
Rizen said:
As someone who has shifted nearly all of my purchases to Amazon partly because I avoid paying sales tax, I can understand the problem this creates.
Click to expand...

And I've been shifting my purchase to other out of state companies since Amazon has started charging sales tax in California.
 
As much as I dislike having to pay sales tax on stuff, I can't help but feel like the current system is unfair.

Local mom and pop's are forced to charge sales tax, while internet companies gain an unfair advantage and steal their business by circumventing state tax laws.

This is one way to fix it.

That being said, I'd rather disband the armed forces, replace them with a conscription style homeland defense force, spend more on education and healthcare, lower taxes, and still balance the budget.

We spend WAY too much on the military today.
 
Rob94hawk said:
Fail. Bigtime. Entitlements are the problem. And you can thank Democrats for creating them:

http://usbudgetalert.com/USBudgetCharts/fedBudget2012.jpg
Click to expand...

Problem is this chart (and charts like it) don't include special war funding bills outside of the regular budget.

If you count in these special funding bills, our military spending pretty much outweighs anything else we spend money on (and we have very little to show for it)
 
but it is fair as on line you pay shipping and have to wait a few days, we have to many dam taxes and they should be cutting taxes not adding more every time you look
 
Mr34727 said:
Medicare and Medicaid...
Click to expand...

What crazy is that those two programs wouldn't be anywhere near as big of a fiscal sucker punch in the US provided the actual cost of care was so ludicrously out of control. The problem isn't their existence so much as the insanely high cost of treatment in the states (more or less double per person on average than other equivalent nations).
 
That's easy. I'd say the sections label "Everything else" and "Other mandatory spending". If you break those down you'll probably see the money wasted on things like

-- A $325,000 grant for the development of "Robosquirrel" - a robotic rodent designed to test the interaction between rattlesnakes and squirrels

-- Nearly $700,000 from the National Science Foundation to a New York-based theater company so it could develop a musical about climate change and biodiversity. "The Great Immensity" opened in Kansas City this year. Along with the songs one reviewer described as sounding like "a Wikipedia entry set to music," the audience was also able to experience "flying monkey poop."

-- $520,000 to fix the Stevenson Road Covered Bridge in Green County, Ohio which was last used in 2003. Basically a bridge to nowhere.

Oh, and don't forget the "green" money spent for Solyndra and Fiskar.

QUOTE=Super-D;1039821313]Just out of curiosity, what do you count as "entitlements" on that pie chart? Certainly nothing that would qualify your response.[/QUOTE]
 
This isn't going to change anything. People will still buy online cause its more convenient and not everything online is available at local stores. Maybe ebay sales will go up. I never charge taxes for stuff I sell thru ebay.
 
Doesn't matter. Local businesses are at a disadvantage because they charge like 50% more, not because they charge sales tax.
 
DPI said:
The for-profit military industry would consider any significant reduction to be too great a shock to the system. At least thats how I've seen it explained by economists and financial minds much smarter than I.

Our defense budget has been a one-way street for a long time now - always expanding, never contracting. The analogy I often hear is like gas expanding to fill the available space.
Click to expand...

Load of bullshit. The defense structure would take a hit but it would not halt our ability to keep power and continue to supply our forces. We wasted TRILLIONS on wars without blinking an eye , the military doesn't need half of what it gets each budget year to survive. Lots of that money goes into R&D on useless projects that end up costing us Billions more to even see to full reality (The F-35A is a prime example of how to waste 10's of billions of dollars and still not be fully combat ready). Government just announced it wants to replace the B-2 Stealth Bomber this year as well even though there is no reason to do so , we have only 22 in service yet the project calls for 30 of whatever the next generation will be made by 2025 which won't happen. It'll cost double or triple what was projected and no one will complain.

We are not in Iraq anymore and we are nearly out of Afghanistan , the reasons for the military being so incredibly well funded are drying up day by day. Unless we are in a war , there is simply no reason to keep up this massive $700+ Billion dollar budget for the military. Lucky for them we are a war mongering nation that desires war to fund the military industrial complex we've created.

If one President had the balls to cut the budget of the military in half over 10 years , it would not only pay for all of our debt crisis nonsense we've created thanks to fuck heads on Wall Street making bets against a non-existent market without any checks or balances in place or oversight , it would looked back upon as one of the single most effective and important budgetary changes in the last 50 years to our Government.

But that's all a pipe dream. 90 percent of the country favored backround checks for buying weapons .. 90 PERCENT and the house completely ignore that and struck down that bill thanks to NRA lobbyist money.

The White House will endorse any kind of Tax in order to please its lobbyist buddies (far to often people leave Capital Hill for a cushy lobbyist job and leave that job filthy rich..)

Until someone gets into office with a true sense of purpose and understanding on what hard decisions need to be made , we will be stuck with our lame duck Government and its lame duck decisions.
 
Couple running myths in this thread.

The military has been slashed a few times already and its really a lot smaller than gets attributed because the VA and military pensions aren't going away anytime soon even if we disbanded the military completely. Even so, the military is far from driving our debt any longer. You could disband it and you wouldn't balance the budget. So this propaganda campaign to lay it all at the feet of the military is pretty funny and defies simple math.

The other myth is that sales taxes are in anyway fair. A sales takes burns people who don't make enough money to invest large amounts of money. Anyone whose done the math realizes how much tax free growth in their IRA matters over the long hall. So people who make money off money will make even more money while people who earn a living bear the brunt. Also if you have enough money you can start dodging taxes through businesses.
 
My solution is to spend less overall, and to work more (Part time job as well as my full time). You can really only do two things, spend less or make more money. The govt. will always want taxes and I will always want to avoid paying them so.
 
jpm100 said:
The other myth is that sales taxes are in anyway fair. A sales takes burns people who don't make enough money to invest large amounts of money. Anyone whose done the math realizes how much tax free growth in their IRA matters over the long hall. So people who make money off money will make even more money while people who earn a living bear the brunt. Also if you have enough money you can start dodging taxes through businesses.
Click to expand...

Fairness in taxes though is a relative term (I will stay away from the Federal question since a lot of taxes occur at other levels):

- Sales Tax: Generally a local or state tax. It is regressive, in the sense that people who "spend" their money to live (the poor) pay more, but the poor benefit from roads, and sewers, and police, and fire departments the same as the rich do. Many foreign countries have similar taxes of this sort, VAT (Value Added Taxes), but the payment scheme is a little different.

- Property Tax: Again primarily a local or state tax. This tax hits property owners the hardest (primarily the Middle Class) but is useful in states like Texas where they don't wish to have a State Tax. The poor are less affected by this tax as they are less likely to own property and the penalty of this tax for renters is smaller.

- State Tax: The poor are generally exempted from this tax as there is usually an income threshold.

- Business Taxes: Corporate taxes, unemployment taxes, industry taxes (like gas taxes), social security taxes, etc (some of these are revenue based, some are employee based). They can be a combination of state and federal requirements. Too many and the environment becomes unattractive for business, too few and business gets a free ride (a tough balancing act)

- Employee Taxes: things like Social Security and Medicare/DI

- Income Taxes: The federal taxes (as I said, I won't dive into this hornet's nest)

- Import Taxes/Tariffs: Largely out of favor now due to the global trade organizations and the realities of free trade (these greatly impact the costs of goods and services since they are passed directly onto the consumer).

- Specialty Taxes: things like capital gains, inheritance, luxury, Transportation (Toll roads/bridges, Airport, License/Registration fees), etc

With the large number of taxes there is little opportunity for a totally fair tax. The best you can hope for is a balanced mixture of effective budgeting (to minimize the amount of tax revenue needed), oversight (to try to minimize waste and fraud), and balance (try to distribute some of the tax load to all who benefit from or are affected by the taxes). Most people want some level of basic services so it is always a balance to find the right mix of government services versus the cost of those services :cool:
 
this disparity undermines the ability of cities and States to invest in K-12 education, police and fire protection, access to affordable health care, and funding for roads and bridges.
Click to expand...

What I find hilarious is that Obama says this about everything ... from the consequences of his federal sequester cuts to what will happen if we don't support every federal tax hike he proposes.
  1. funding from roads and bridges are supposed to be paid with tolls and gas/property taxes.
  2. education, police, and fire are supposed to be paid with property taxes or by those that actually use those services.
  3. don't even get me started on this affordable health care bs ...

We have multiple taxes for the same thing and still ... our roads/bridges are crumbling, our education system is horrible, and our police/fire depts always says they are underfunded. I don't know how one more tax is going to fix that.
 
Godmachine said:
But that's all a pipe dream. 90 percent of the country favored backround checks for buying weapons .. 90 PERCENT and the house completely ignore that and struck down that bill thanks to NRA lobbyist money.
Click to expand...
There's no way there is 90% support for what is actually considered. The only way I could see that poll getting those numbers is if they pretty much called you a terrorist if you didn't say yes and the person asked wasn't informed that they were being called a terrorist for not supporting reporting to the government the fact you gifted your kid a .22.
 
jpm100 said:
There's no way there is 90% support for what is actually considered. The only way I could see that poll getting those numbers is if they pretty much called you a terrorist if you didn't say yes and the person asked wasn't informed that they were being called a terrorist for not supporting reporting to the government the fact you gifted your kid a .22.
Click to expand...

The poll they got the 90% from was limited to the 6 states that had the highest vote totals for Obama and was overwhelmingly Democrat voters that voted for Obama in the last election. The wording of the robo call was also ridiculously biased.

A national Gallup poll showed that only 5% of people think that Gun Control legislation is a high priority ... and that was before the Boston bombing.

Polls aside ... Congress has zero authority to even consider any sort of legislation that would impact the ownership of firearms by the 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendments. It's up to the states/communities to decide what the gun laws will be. Of course, 48 of the 50 states have mirrors of the 2nd Amendment in their state constitutions ... meaning the states can't really decide either unless they pass a new amendment.
 
Kor said:
What crazy is that those two programs wouldn't be anywhere near as big of a fiscal sucker punch in the US provided the actual cost of care was so ludicrously out of control. The problem isn't their existence so much as the insanely high cost of treatment in the states (more or less double per person on average than other equivalent nations).
Click to expand...

The reason the cost of care is so high might be due to demand created by medicare/medicaid (and employer insurance) and their willingness to pay whatever-it-costs free market prices to keep people alive.
 
Taldren said:
The poll they got the 90% from was limited to the 6 states that had the highest vote totals for Obama and was overwhelmingly Democrat voters that voted for Obama in the last election. The wording of the robo call was also ridiculously biased.

A national Gallup poll showed that only 5% of people think that Gun Control legislation is a high priority ... and that was before the Boston bombing.

Polls aside ... Congress has zero authority to even consider any sort of legislation that would impact the ownership of firearms by the 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendments. It's up to the states/communities to decide what the gun laws will be. Of course, 48 of the 50 states have mirrors of the 2nd Amendment in their state constitutions ... meaning the states can't really decide either unless they pass a new amendment.
Click to expand...

I always thought the show "Yes, Minister" did the best job talking about polls ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLhFXkvugLM ... the show clip starts about 10 seconds into the video :cool: ... the text if you prefer to read instead ;) ...

Sir Humphrey: “You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don’t want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey: “Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey: “Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey: “Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey: “Do you think they respond to a challenge?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey: “Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?”

Bernard Woolley: “Oh…well, I suppose I might be.”

Sir Humphrey: “Yes or no?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey: “Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can’t say no to that. So they don’t mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.”

Bernard Woolley: “Is that really what they do?”

Sir Humphrey: “Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren’t many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.”

Bernard Woolley: “How?”

Sir Humphrey: “Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey: “Are you worried about the growth of armaments?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey: “Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey: “Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey: “Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey: “There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top