White House Endorses Internet Sales Tax

stevedave

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
5,737

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
As long as people continue to live in debt and pay crazy interest rates for things they really can't afford this is exactly what will happen. The ones with money, lending money, will make money from those who are borrowing from them.
 

kbrickley

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
7,514
As long as people continue to live in debt and pay crazy interest rates for things they really can't afford this is exactly what will happen. The ones with money, lending money, will make money from those who are borrowing from them.

But this is a side effect of our consumption based economy ... the government and business wants people to spend money because that is the largest part of our GDP ...

even in China you see this ... there will never be another Tiananmen Square because the Chinese didn't want democracy ... they wanted stuff ... when the government changed the rules so that their new urban populations could have a nice flat, a decent car, the latest appliances ... it was then that they calmed down

Americans love our stuff and debt has been an unfortunate side effect of that ... people want more stuff than they can afford and debt provides them a mechanism to do that ... it has also become a new form of the "company store" since the debt prevents workers from getting too rowdy since they can't afford to lose their incomes they are using to sustain the debt :cool:
 

Thuleman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
5,833
"During the first two years of the nation’s economic recovery, the mean net worth of households in the upper 7% of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28%, while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4%"

Poor people are poor by choice.
The lower 93% are too inept to make money work for them.
 

Putz

I have a custom title
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
5,378
As long as people continue to live in debt and pay crazy interest rates for things they really can't afford this is exactly what will happen. The ones with money, lending money, will make money from those who are borrowing from them.

Funny you say that, I know someone I used to work with that had to go to a high interest car lot to get a vehicle, they pay something like 750$ a month for a used Dodge caravan( a new one was half the monthly payments for the same time period), they couldn't get a mortgage of any sort in Canada, they were relocated for work in VA and they have a home that up here would be in the 400k range, I don't get how someone can relocate with piss poor credit and start fresh there and be handed something like that... i thought they changed all the housing rules in the US to try and fix people getting homes they'd never be able to actually pay off

then again that said in Canada you can step off a boat or a plane and get a mortgage easier than someone like myself born and raised here who's been working since I was 14, they can fill in the income section as "funded by relatives back home" my Ex used to work in a mortgage unit and the stories of mortgage's handed out to people for homes for more than your typical Canadian would have, with interest discounts as a "new Canadian"

I doubt they'd have similar practices in the USA but its annoying and frustrating, Perhaps both Canada and the US need to slow down on the importing of people and make use of what they have first :/
 

dandragonrage

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
8,298
As long as people continue to live in debt and pay crazy interest rates for things they really can't afford this is exactly what will happen. The ones with money, lending money, will make money from those who are borrowing from them.

The "F-ed" up thing is that everyone in the US is borrowing all of their money from an extremely corrupt group of bankers known as... the "Fed." Just because a corrupt group of bankers succeeded in making that happen doesn't mean they should have this amount of control over us. Biggest issue we deal with is that there's a never-ending supply of BS to deal with in peoples lives which makes them give up. People should be researching politicians, voting incumbents out the majority of the time, boycotting companies that wrong us, etc. Those are RESPONSIBILITIES that Capitalism REQUIRES from its people. When most people refuse to do their part, the result is a corrupt government financed by corrupt businessmen who have no care for anything except the size of their useless wealth that they would never even be able to spend anyway.
 

stevedave

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
5,737
Poor people are poor by choice.
The lower 93% are too inept to make money work for them.

Ignorance at its finest.
While there are some instance of people with missed opportunity resulting most cases poor people are born into poverty from their poor parents whom fail to facilitate the requirements to become wealthy....for the top 7% mentioned above its going to an ivy league school.

Also if you are claiming yourself in that top 7% you are likely misguided...though you might be in the $250,000+ crowd.
 

Hulahoops

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
355
Also if you are claiming yourself in that top 7% you are likely misguided...though you might be in the $250,000+ crowd.

I would suspect that number is more a brain cell count than monetary one, as proven by the statement.
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2012
Messages
61
Poor people are poor by choice.
The lower 93% are too inept to make money work for them.

I didn't think you people actually existed holy shit

Do you know anything, at all, about factors leading to a person being wealthy?

Here's a hint: intelligence isn't anywhere close to the leading factor
 

MDboyz

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2002
Messages
307
Eventually, you will have to pay tax based on your income. The rich will have to pay more tax on the same item, and maybe the poor can buy the item tax free :) ...
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,865
I didn't think you people actually existed holy shit

Do you know anything, at all, about factors leading to a person being wealthy?

Here's a hint: intelligence isn't anywhere close to the leading factor

Mostly it is ambition and persistence. Though there does seem to be a certain level of intelligence required to pull oneself up out of the muck. Mostly, stupid people rarely get rich unless it is inherited, or the lotto.
 

magnetik

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 6, 2000
Messages
5,943
I can't wait for Amazon to open up warehouses next to all those B&M stores crying to level the playing field.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,393
Poor people are poor by choice.
The lower 93% are too inept to make money work for them.

It's always easy to justify injustice, when you blame it on the victims.

Truth is, people who are successful like to credit themselves and their hard work for their success.

Truth is, hard work, intelligence and discipline, the things that many who have had success, claim were the cause for their success... It is mostly bull.

The number one predictor of whether or an American will be successful is still who their parents are.

Yes, success takes a lot of hard work, but it also takes a boatload of luck. Being born into a family that values education, having been at the right place at the right time, to make the right decision for a successful outcome...

Some of the hardest working people I have ever met are the working poor (who as opposed to common belief actually comprise the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients). These are people who work two or three manual labor jobs, never getting enough sleep just to provide for their families. What's the root cause? Could be many things, but usually it starts with the luck of the draw. What family were they born into. Were they lucky enough to have good role models, parents who valued education, and helped them make wise choices.

I wouldn't consider myself wealthy, but I have done OK for myself. I'll be the first to acknowledge how extraordinarily lucky I was to have dedicated parents who as a kid forced me to do my homework and held me accountable for getting good grades, among very many other things. You show me the 9 year old boy who is dedicated, self motivated and wants to focus on his multiplication tables. Most kids don't have this growing up, and it's not their fault.

It all starts at this age, and once you fall behind, it is very hard, if not impossible to catch back up, especially if your lack of guidance and good role models lead you to be a teen parent. You are pretty much screwed for life.

Quite frankly, there is no such thing as a self made man. The self has very little to do with it. It's really mostly luck.

The sooner we all gain some humility, and realize this, the better for us, and for society as a whole. it then becomes morally impossible to pull the equivalent of "fuck y'all, I've got mine".
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,393
Also if you are claiming yourself in that top 7% you are likely misguided...though you might be in the $250,000+ crowd.

You'd be surprised.

From an individual income perspective, the top 7% are those who earn $97,500 per year or more.

From a household income perspective, the top 7% are those who earn $160,500 per year or more.
 

Elios

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
7,259
Zarathustra[H];1039822440 said:
My plan was to all sales and property taxes. Essentially replace ALL other taxes with this plan, regardless of type.

I did intend to consider inheritance as income though for purposes of taxation, but allow people to set up a fund and spread it out over many years to avoid losing it all to the progressive tax curve in one year.

the issue there is how do you deal with say some one leaving a 1000 acre farm to the kids or wife?
with out the taxes on the land forcing them to sell
 

Phoenix333

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,510
Nobody should be surprised the White House supports a tax. :rolleyes:

All these cries of "fairness"... Ok, so when you order something from Amazon or Newegg, you'll have to pay tax AND shipping. B&M stores you'll only have to pay tax, so to me the whole "fairness" argument falls apart. Any time someone cries about "fairness" it's about the government wanting something that's unpopular. Someone's going to lose no matter how you look at it, and I'd rather Best Buy and Walmart lose. Online ordering is the future. They want to compete, find another business model. States have a tax problem? Stop spending money on stupid crap. So sick of people yelling about fire and police every time lack of tax money becomes a concern. Fire and police cost nothing compared to bureaucratic bloat. How about some salary cuts for politicians, and throw in some term limits while we're at it? How about no vacations on the public dime? How about politicians fly coach and pay for their own plane tickets instead of racking up hundreds of thousands and billing the taxpayer for it? Cut the waste first, THEN you can start talking about taxes. Stupid politicians will just waste it anyway, so there's no point to it unless they're willing to balance their own budgets first.
 

Elios

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
7,259
bah lack of edit the above post is a REAL issue here in southern MO right now
people are having to sell there land because they cant pay the inheritance tax on the land or worse the tax value of the land is HIGHER the real-estate value YES IT HAPPENS
 

Taldren

Gawd
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
521
Ah yes, we need big savings so lets go after that huge .06% of the budget that goes to foreign aid.

It's 1.6% ... but try as you may to may it look small ... ITS STILL NEARLY 60 BILLION DOLLARS!!!!

2012 Budget: $3.7 Trillion
2012 Foreign Aid: $58 Billion

The fact that 60 Billion is only 1.6% of our budget is just more proof that our spending is out of control.
 

Taldren

Gawd
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
521
Rich people pay more actual dollars in taxes because they get more benefit from society.

47% of Americans pay a net zero income tax and 50% of the benefits these 47% get for free are paid for by the top 10% of Americans.

You need to read more Frederic Bastiat and less Liberal Media.
 

farscapesg1

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 4, 2004
Messages
2,623
As for the actual topic, we've been dealing with taxes from Amazon here in Texas for a little bit and honestly, it hasn't stopped my spending with them. Still comes out cheaper on the pocket book and less stressful then walking into a Best Buy. A sales tax that will go directly to the states.. i'm okay with that. Will it hurt the little guys.. probably, but they need to adapt just like brick-and-mortar stores have to adapt to the increasing internet-based commerce.

As to the tax debate in general, there isn't a clear "one answer fits all". Everyone likes to jump on the "tax the wealthy" horse that has been beaten to a bloody pulp. Personally, I don't feel like it is anyone's responsibility to try to support/boost someone else up. At the same time, our current tax situation is ridiculous. For example, I've got a friend who is a single mom that has decided she is going to quit working full time and go part time.... and come out about the same financially. Instead of working to better herself, she can work part time (her kid is in 1st grade, so not even home most of the day), and between tax bracket cuts, deductions, financial aid, etc... she can continue living her lifestyle with practically no change.

So yeah, it makes me mad to think that my taxes are going to support someone like that. If there were more checks and balances to ensure that people only received benefits/support/etc. for a period of time while they worked to better themselves (while providing proof that they were striving to make a better life) then I wouldn't hate our "progressive" tax system so much. Instead, as was mentioned earlier, we take from those that have higher dreams and work to attain them to give to those with lesser dreams or no desire to better themselves.

What I don't believe is that the middle-class or upper-classes need to continuously support the poverty-level citizens until they die, or worse, produce offspring that continues the same income level. At some point it has to reach an "enough is enough" level and there has to be a cut off.
 

Taldren

Gawd
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
521
Zarathustra[H];1039822597 said:
You tax this family at 15% you are taking away 15% of their necessities.

You tax a wealthy person at this rate, sure he won't be happy about it, but in the grand scheme of things, he will be fine. He'll just have to do with slightly less luxury than he would have otherwise.

1. That 'luxury' is paychecks to a whole lot of people who would consider that money a necessity.

2. You assume too much as to what that wealth could have been spent on. That 15% could have been 15% more employees, R&D into a much needed product, ect. You can not quantify how much the pain of taxation like that.
 

stevedave

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
5,737
Zarathustra[H];1039823412 said:
You'd be surprised.

From an individual income perspective, the top 7% are those who earn $97,500 per year or more.

From a household income perspective, the top 7% are those who earn $160,500 per year or more.

Could you link me to the source? I couldn't find one. I found the top 1% but nothing that broke it down to the top 7% and none of it was modern data.
 

DogChainX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
2,035
1. That 'luxury' is paychecks to a whole lot of people who would consider that money a necessity.

2. You assume too much as to what that wealth could have been spent on. That 15% could have been 15% more employees, R&D into a much needed product, ect. You can not quantify how much the pain of taxation like that.

May I just add....that % being reinvested that aids in job creation. Less wealth, less incentive and ability to take risks in investments, less growth, less jobs. People need jobs more than they need a tax break.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,393
2. You assume too much as to what that wealth could have been spent on. That 15% could have been 15% more employees, R&D into a much needed product, ect. You can not quantify how much the pain of taxation like that.


That money doesn't just magically disappear out of the marketplace.

Let's assume for a moment that wealthy people don't save any money (which they do).

Take 15% of their money, so that is 15% less they are spending in the market, and fair enough, the businesses they patron, and products they buy which provide jobs for others, will now have 15% less money than they had before.

But it's not like government just makes the money magically disappear, that same money gets put to use in other places, paying soldiers paychecks, building roads, etc. etc. etc, which brings all that money right back into the market again, creating jobs and doing all the same things it would do if someone spent it directly.

Now, is it better if that money stays in the free market rather than be spent by government? Certainly!* And that's why every reasonable attempt should be made to keep the tax burden low. There are things that a civilized society needs to pay for - however - and as such a it is a necessary evil.

The same amount of money winds up circulating in the economy (and possibly more, see below) regardless of whether it is spent by government or if it is spent by a wealthy citizen. The upside of the wealthy citizen spending it is that consumer choice helps advance the best products/services, whereas the benefit of government spending the money is that a larger proportion of it tends to be domestic expenditure, thus driving the domestic economy.

Don't ever forget that the "Job Creator" myth is one with a political agenda behind it. Namely the agenda of big money wanting to keep and control as much of that big money as possible, regardless of the outcome, be it better or worse for society as a whole.



* (well, one could also argue - As Keynes did - that the marginal propensity to save, in other words, that the more money people have, the larger proportion of it they save, reduces GDP, and as such it is WORSE for the economy if the wealthy keep and save their money, which is why I made the assumption of no saving above. According to this theory scenario it is better to tax the wealthy as the poor are going to spend all their money anyway because they have to, and the more money that is put back in motion in the economy, the more GDP grows, so it is advantageous to get some of that otherwise saved money moving)
 

Etherton

Will Bang for Poof
Joined
Aug 7, 2006
Messages
6,997
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.

BS :rolleyes:
 

maverikv

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
1,992
47% of Americans pay a net zero income tax and 50% of the benefits these 47% get for free are paid for by the top 10% of Americans.

You need to read more Frederic Bastiat and less Liberal Media.

Oh please the old 47% canard? They still pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, inheritance taxes, state taxes, gasoline tax, taxes on telecommunications etc. our tax system works on a bracket system.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,393
Oh please the old 47% canard? They still pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, inheritance taxes, state taxes, gasoline tax, taxes on telecommunications etc. our tax system works on a bracket system.

Not to mention that the vast majority of them are either retirees or the working poor as well as - in many cases - veterans.

It was a lie by omission to fire up the base and get them angry about something.
 

yourgrandma

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
1,386
Zarathustra[H];1039823853 said:
Not BS at all.

Polling performed by Quinnipiac University, a very respectable polling organization.

92% of Americans, including 91% of all gun owners favor universal background checks for firearms purchases.

Read it for yourself.

Did you actually read it? That is some very selective polling and hardly represents all Americans.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,393
Did you actually read it? That is some very selective polling and hardly represents all Americans.

The polling is not nationwide, but covers areas with broad ranges in the level of gun appeal, and is designed to be representative of a national sense on the issue.

But if you don't believe their predictive algorithms, then yes, the results are limited to Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
 

Etherton

Will Bang for Poof
Joined
Aug 7, 2006
Messages
6,997
Zarathustra[H];1039823853 said:
Not BS at all.

Polling performed by Quinnipiac University, a very respectable polling organization.

92% of Americans, including 91% of all gun owners favor universal background checks for firearms purchases.

Read it for yourself.

Put it on a national election and end the argument for good. I bet you will be disappointed.
 

magnetik

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 6, 2000
Messages
5,943
Never trust opinion polls. That's what they're for.. twisting / swaying opinions one way or another.
 

Mini-Me

Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
567
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.

First, the NRA is not some monolithic corporate lobbyist. It's an organization comprised and funded by a pretty major subset of the American public.

Second, the 90% figure comes from a cherry-picked Quinnipac study, where participants were asked the seemingly innocuous question, "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?"

The respondents CLEARLY did not understand the full implications of the question, because here were their answers to the question, "Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?"
Support: 52%
Oppose: 43%
Don't know/undecided: 5%

Third, NONE of the bills in contention stopped at background checks. You had people like Feinstein going for all-out bans on tactical weapons and magazine limits, and then Toomey's amendment - while claiming to explicitly forbid a national gun registry - organized the background checks in such a way that they would become a de facto gun registry in everything but name. Even if you took the "90%" poll as a mandate and ignored the other questions, it was still not applicable to the bills that were presented.

Last, recent polls are simply out of step with the vast majority of polls on gun control over the past generation. The most recent Princeton poll shows that support for new gun control has "slipped" to 49/45%, yet here's the thing: Compared to the historical record, this is still more of a high than a low, and it came only after months on end of directed media propaganda. The administration even literally brought in Sandy Hook families on taxpayer dollars to use as props for the government's perennial gun control agenda, and they STILL barely cracked 50% fleeting support. As time goes on and the media campaign subsides, support for more gun control will go back to normal. Check out the historical Gallup polls as of October 2011: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx

"In terms of gun laws in the United States, which of the following would you prefer to see happen -- enforce the current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass new gun laws (or) pass new gun laws in addition to enforcing the current laws more strictly?"
Back in 2001, 51% said "enforce current laws" to 44% who said "pass new laws," and by 2011, 60% said "enforce current laws" to 35% who said "pass new laws."

Frankly, these long-term polls are FAR more reliable than polls that rely on the media emotionally manipulating the public for short-term gun control support spikes.

UGH.


Okay, now that that's out of the way, the actual issue at hand is simpler:
If you want things to be FAIR, then states and localities should eliminate their own sales tax to allow their local companies to better compete with Internet companies. An Internet sales tax is just about the LAST thing we need (well, that and everything else Washington keeps trying to force down our throats).
 

kbrickley

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
7,514
Okay, now that that's out of the way, the actual issue at hand is simpler:
If you want things to be FAIR, then states and localities should eliminate their own sales tax to allow their local companies to better compete with Internet companies. An Internet sales tax is just about the LAST thing we need (well, that and everything else Washington keeps trying to force down our throats).

First, my reading of this is this is not an "internet tax" it is simply asking internet companies to pay the state taxes that already exist

That said, I couldn't care less about the local businesses ability to compete with bigger companies (or smaller internet companies either for that matter) ... even with the tax that Amazon now charges they are still cheaper and have better selection than any local business (and most other internet companies) ... I have spent my entire career working for large multinational corporations and I have no problems supporting them in the least because they are the best and the most competitive companies ;)
 

maverikv

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
1,992
Oh man how did we get fair taxers and gun nuts in the same thread? Paging gold standard proponents and general paultards. We're having a rodeo apparently.
 

Mr34727

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
3,989
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).

What countries offer the same quality and expertise as the doctors found in the US?
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
Nobody should be surprised the White House supports a tax. :rolleyes:

All these cries of "fairness"... Ok, so when you order something from Amazon or Newegg, you'll have to pay tax AND shipping. B&M stores you'll only have to pay tax, so to me the whole "fairness" argument falls apart. Any time someone cries about "fairness" it's about the government wanting something that's unpopular. Someone's going to lose no matter how you look at it, and I'd rather Best Buy and Walmart lose. Online ordering is the future. They want to compete, find another business model. States have a tax problem? Stop spending money on stupid crap. So sick of people yelling about fire and police every time lack of tax money becomes a concern. Fire and police cost nothing compared to bureaucratic bloat. How about some salary cuts for politicians, and throw in some term limits while we're at it? How about no vacations on the public dime? How about politicians fly coach and pay for their own plane tickets instead of racking up hundreds of thousands and billing the taxpayer for it? Cut the waste first, THEN you can start talking about taxes. Stupid politicians will just waste it anyway, so there's no point to it unless they're willing to balance their own budgets first.

You are just pointing out that you really don't understand the heart of this issue. What is fair for the governments that rely on sales tax when their citizens are purposely choosing to buy thing farther away to avoid tax, this harms our entire country in many ways.
1 it reduces money for running anything in the state funded by the sales tax, as such its no surprise when a recession hit that this starts getting pushed into the spot light. Money is still flowing the government is just getting far less of it. People have found a loophole.

This has a negative effect on the environment. People are purposely shipping stuff and wasting gas, packaging etc to do something inefficiently. We are talking not just about B&M vs local, we are talking about things as simple as 2 products, exactly the same price and free shipping and some one wants to ship it from NJ to CA just to avoid buying it at Newegg.

That's an inefficiency and efficiency is one of only 2 products that decide the entire wealth and success of a nation.

I am not saying that government waste does not exist or that it is OK, but we aren't talking about a much bigger scale. A couple politicians flying first class is nothing in the budget of a state.
 

stevedave

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
5,737
Off topicish, but I found a site that shows where you stand in terms of richest person on earth....I'm 6,040,253rd richest person on earth and in the top 10% based on income alone.

And yet I have virtually nothing due to student loans and shit.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/


Doesn't show the source behind the data and it include all of earth so Africa gets lumped in with america which is why it put me in the top 10%. I'd take this as fun not fact.
 
Top