White House Endorses Internet Sales Tax

[Gavv]

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.

What really needs to be asked is why they are choosing to buy it and not spend the money on taxes? Obviously, if you can get something cheaper, you buy it. But that is not really the answer. Is it solely price, or people opting to not pay something because of the continual waste of the local government? You mention it harms the country, well it may, except that the country is still consuming the money for the product. The state is the one harmed by not getting the tax.

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.

Sure they have, but when the tax rates from property tax, sales tax, this fee, that fee seem unfair to the consumer, especially in the sense its perceived, or in some cases, wages haven't been rising as fast as the cost of living, then it should be expected. People have to be frugal with their money, they expect the state to be as well. I am definitely not saying all think way, but if you feel your money is wasted, or going to something you don't support, it is easier to not care about the state end of it and just go for the cheaper. Regardless of the shortfalls it costs the state, and eventually you in the end.

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.

There really is not a gas waste at this point. As those 2 items do not make up a whole shipment. While they are being shipped, they are among many other products going to the destination. That is not a waste, that is also efficiency. However, they do sometimes waste packaging on a huge scale.

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.

When the state is broke, it sure the hell does. In the grand scheme of things it may not be much money at all.... But go ask a broke person what 50 dollars would do for them. We the taxpayers shoulder that cost. And even the small incidentals start to add up, and eventually they have to be paid for.

 

[kbrickley]

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.

Woo Hoo ... I am in the top 9% only 5,778,154 people make more than me ... although I would have been in the top 3% at my peak in my Intel employment days ... wish I could go back to those days

 

[Thuleman]

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

I didn't claim that you had to be intelligent to be wealthy, I claimed that those who are not wealthy are so by their own doing. Ineptitude isn't a function of intelligence. Inept to me is a catch-all term for "unwilling or unable", where unable is caused by sheer lack of will.

Having said that; I fully support sales tax. I don't think it's right that those who purchase something online and reside in a state that ordinarily charges sales tax are able to spend money, receive something of value, and not pay sales tax on it.

If your state charges sales tax then you should pay it regardless of whether you make your purchase online. Sales tax is a consumer tax and should be based on the location of the consumer. Pretty simple really.

 

[Taldren]

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 difference is that the money spent by citizens are spent based on the market principles rather than by political agenda. How many individuals that had the knowledge/ability to accumulate that much wealth would have made the mistake of investing in companies the likes of Fisker and Solyndra? The government spends money that is not theirs, so they have no attachment to it and will often spend just to further a political agenda. If the government losses billions on an extremely bone headed investment ... oh well. If an wealthy person does the same ... they aren't wealthy anymore.

It is always better for everyone to allow a citizen to spend their own money.

 

[Taldren]

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.

Yawn, the same 47% don't have enough wealth to be affected by the inheritance tax and qualify to get most, if not all, of their state tax back as well.

property tax, gasoline tax, and telecommunication tax are at least usage fees ... they aren't mandatory.

Equal protection under the law ... Flat Tax is the way to go. No more zero liability voters, No more 'tax day', no more threat of IRS audit for everyday citizens, no more loopholes, and no more government coercion through 'tax breaks'.

 

[Taldren]

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.

Again, polled the top 6 states that voted for Obama and without any information to give proper context to the questions. There was no case made by that poll ... it relied completely on information given to them by the media which is more certainly heavily left leaning and pro-gun control.

Yet you ignore the national Gallup poll done that shows that only 4% of the country think that gun legislation is even a priority.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/few-guns-immigration-nation-top-problems.aspx

 

[brycejones]

Woo Hoo ... I am in the top 9% only 5,778,154 people make more than me ... although I would have been in the top 3% at my peak in my Intel employment days ... wish I could go back to those days

Eh....I call that site's calculations garbage, I do well, but not that well.

 

[brycejones]

and without any information to give proper context to the questions.

I am curious what do you consider proper context?

 

[Gorankar]

Eh....I call that site's calculations garbage, I do well, but not that well.

So do I. Top .04% for my live in, and she only makes $198K a year. (doctor). I rank even higher, or lower, as a slum lord making not that much more than that. Plus that site seems aimed at making you feel bad for having two pennies to rub together. "Here, donate to us and you will feel better." LOL

I am against the e-tailers collecting the tax. Especially the small ones that are not equipped, and likely can not afford to equip themselves, to deal with 40+ different state's tax bureaucracies.
It is on the state to collect the tax. If the people are not paying it, and you can not enforce it, change from sales tax to income tax, or property tax, or what not. A states power to extend it's will outside it's borders needs to be kept where it is now, and not extended. Can you people not see the lawsuits that this would cause. The states would have to sue pretty much all of the smaller e-tailers that could not comply, or simply do not comply, with all of their varying tax laws. Letting this happen would be a mess.
I am not going to scream about misuse of tax dollars, or how the local governments should trim the fat. Let them get these missing tax dollars another way. A way that is compact to the state.

 

[kbrickley]

I am against the e-tailers collecting the tax. Especially the small ones that are not equipped, and likely can not afford to equip themselves, to deal with 40+ different state's tax bureaucracies.
It is on the state to collect the tax. If the people are not paying it, and you can not enforce it, change from sales tax to income tax, or property tax, or what not. A states power to extend it's will outside it's borders needs to be kept where it is now, and not extended. Can you people not see the lawsuits that this would cause. The states would have to sue pretty much all of the smaller e-tailers that could not comply, or simply do not comply, with all of their varying tax laws. Letting this happen would be a mess.
I am not going to scream about misuse of tax dollars, or how the local governments should trim the fat. Let them get these missing tax dollars another way. A way that is compact to the state.

Another alternative, although I suspect people would really oppose this as it would kill off the internet purchasing, would be that you give the companies a choice ... you collect the tax and pay it directly to the states with tax requirements (the big companies would take this option) ... or you provide a list of all your customers and their purchase values (not the purchases themselves) to the states (so they can send a bill to their residents and collect the tax themselves) ... but the privacy crowd might find this a little upsetting ... given those two choices the collecting of the tax might not be so unappealing

 

[stevedave]

Eh....I call that site's calculations garbage, I do well, but not that well.

Yeah I mentioned that in my post.

1. It doesn't show where it gets its data from.
2. It lumps everyone into it, which likely includes people who don't work and people in Africa whom work for 8 cents a day.
3. Cost of living not even considered. I went from 60k in Phoenix to 80K in Seattle and the 60k in Phoenix was more.....and 80k is New York City is likely janitor wages.

Fun none the less though. It would be even better if it took in your tax rates. Or let you do negative values so I can do my worth which is about -80,000 and a pretty high percentage of people in America actually have way more debt than wealth. So while I'm in the top 10% there is a big difference between myself and someone whom has no student loans, some stocks, and a house.

 

[maverikv]

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

Not sure if serious

 

[Mini-Me]

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

If you couldn't care less about the fairness aspect here, what on Earth DO you like about this legislation? You are [from my understanding] a libertarian, so it can't just be that you like how it extorts more protection money from more people on a greater number of occasions, so...yeah, what makes this legislation a good thing?

As for myself, I couldn't care less whether this legislation "only" forces ("asks" doesn't quite describe it) Internet companies to pay existing sales taxes or not. I agree that Amazon will still maintain a competitive advantage due to being an efficient company, but up until now, avoiding the protection racket has been an additional boon of shopping online. I don't particularly want state sales taxes to exist in the first place, so loophole or not, I believe closing this loophole will make the world a worse place. My township and county perform most of the "essential" functions of government all by themselves and then some, leaving it to states and the federal government to handle roads, defense, and non-local criminal justice...and somehow, that turns into obscene wastefulness on a myriad of counterproductive (and sometimes oppressive) programs and bureaucratic overhead that I'd wish to see starved of cash on principle. alone It's not even just about the money: Sometimes I feel that I'd pay extra just to make sure my tax money went somewhere OTHER than state and federal governments.

 

[Mini-Me]

...starved of cash on principle alone.* It's not even just about the money...

I have no idea how the "alone" ended up after the period.

 

[Taldren]

I am curious what do you consider proper context?

What currently exists, what they want to create vs what currently exists, and the for and against argument written in an informative non-biased way.

 

[Phoenix333]

You are just pointing out that you really don't understand the heart of this issue.

I understand that politicians never want to miss an opportunity to spend someone else's money, and that if there's money they can't currently get a hold of they'll try to sell a tax on it any way they can. It's not any more complicated than that.

 

[c3141hf]

Another alternative, although I suspect people would really oppose this as it would kill off the internet purchasing, would be that you give the companies a choice ... you collect the tax and pay it directly to the states with tax requirements (the big companies would take this option) ... or you provide a list of all your customers and their purchase values (not the purchases themselves) to the states (so they can send a bill to their residents and collect the tax themselves) ... but the privacy crowd might find this a little upsetting ... given those two choices the collecting of the tax might not be so unappealing

I prefer the 3rd option :

Realizing that armed robbery is wrong and actually earning your money through legitimate means.

 

[v6maro]

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.

Income:
You’re in the top
0.06%
richest people in the world by income.

Wealth:
You’re in the top
1.15%
richest people in the world.

Not bad lol.

 

[JayteeBates]

Eh....I call that site's calculations garbage, I do well, but not that well.

I agree It said: You’re in the top 0.03% richest people in the world by income. That makes you the 2,220,413th richest person on earth by income.

I call BS.