TeaBaggers Will Vote To Raise Taxes !!!!!

A bill introduced in the US Senate to tax internet purchases seems to have the blessing of the TeaBaggers. What a bunch of hypocrites !! 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Raising sales taxes on internet purchases is completely different than raising income taxes, which is what Dems wanted to do.

Taxes on your paychecks = much worse than taxes on stuff you occassionally buy on the net.

Originally posted by vivify
Raising sales taxes on internet purchases is completely different than raising income taxes, which is what Dems wanted to do.

Not so different really. Your justifying raising sales tax smacks of semantics. Raising taxes is raising taxes.
Taxed
Enough
Already
Hypocrisy is Hypocrisy.. Repubs and Dems are the same. 😛

This'll be a hard one for you to keep defending, kiddo.

Raising taxes on your paycheck is an act that leaves you with less money, and is something you have no control over.

However, making purchases on the internet isn't something most people have to do. If I want a stereo, or toy for my kid, or music CD or whatever, I can get those anywhere outside the internet.

But keep trying to defend this is weak argument. I find it entertaining.

Oh, and to add to the point, Reps also opposed the tax-hike, because Obama wanted to tax the "rich" at a higher rate than everyon else, which Reps thought wasn't right.

Again: completley different situations. You're comparing apples to cinder blocks.

What a completely ignorant and ridiculous OP. I don't blame you for being ignorant of the facts in this case. After all, reading the actual articles rather than just the headlines is tough. But the incendiary thread title, the use of the offensive term in the OP and the series of emoticons just begs for a beatdown.

So, here goes.

First of all, even if it were a federal sales tax being proposed, using a sales tax to replace (partially or wholly) an income tax has been a proposal in some elements of the conservative/Republican establishment for decades.

Second, and what makes the OP all the more mind boggling, is that the revenue generated from this tax is to go to the states; it is entirely a state sales tax. The bill is only to enable the states to collect the tax.

The Senate could vote as early as Thursday on a bill to empower states to require online retailers to collect state and local sales taxes for purchases made over the Internet. Under the bill, the sales taxes would be sent to the states where a shopper lives.

http://news.yahoo.com/internet-sales-tax-embraced-no-tax-republicans-071018037--finance.html

Of course, the law is logical and fair. You have to pay sales tax when you shop at a store in person. There is absolutely no reason that you should not have to pay sales tax when you buy the same product online. New Yorkers have been paying sales tax on online purchases from large e-commerce sites such as Amazon for years and there's little question that this is the wave of the future.

Increasing state revenues is not at all inconsistent with the TP philosophy. On the contrary; it's entirely in step with the federalism-based philosophy of the federal Republicans.

Originally posted by sh76
What a completely ignorant and ridiculous OP. I don't blame you for being ignorant of the facts in this case. After all, reading the actual articles rather than just the headlines is tough. But the incendiary thread title, the use of the offensive term in the OP and the series of emoticons just begs for a beatdown.

So, here goes.

First of all, even if it trary; it's entirely in step with the federalism-based philosophy of the federal Republicans.

The idea that the sales tax is paid by customers is due to a deal between retailers and the state. Sellers have to submit a defined percentage of their gross receipts to the government as something conventionally called "sales tax" and they recover this by passing the cost on to their customers. Thus it is correct to say that normally "you have to pay sales tax when you shop" but the fact the idea that the state requires the seller to pass on the cost to the customer is not cast in stone. You can find all sorts of sales that trumpet "we pay the sales tax" as a way to boost sales. Here's one:

http://www.naylorsfurniture.com/component/content/article/37-sales/118-wepay.html

So the real question is, does the state simply say to the e-retailer, "start sending us X% of your gross receipts from sales to residents in this state" or does it say "start sending us X% of your gross receipts from sales to residents in this state and reimburse yourself by collecting that amount from your customers"? The latter seems more like government involvement in business decisions, than does the former.

Originally posted by sh76
What a completely ignorant and ridiculous OP. I don't blame you for being ignorant of the facts in this case. After all, reading the actual articles rather than just the headlines is tough. But the incendiary thread title, the use of the offensive term in the OP and the series of emoticons just begs for a beatdown.

An unusually harsh intro from the sh76. Sometimes harshness can add clarity, and the emoticons did have a childlike ignorance here. I will say it was nice in a way when I did not have to pay sales tax on my Amazon purchases (which I make a lot of Amazon purchases). Though, my last comment does not address policy.

Originally posted by moon1969
An unusually harsh intro from the sh76. Sometimes harshness can add clarity, and the emoticons did have a childlike ignorance here. I will say it was nice in a way when I did not have to pay sales tax on my Amazon purchases (which I make a lot of Amazon purchases). Though, my last comment does not address policy.

I'm sorry about the harsh intro, but I think that the term "teabagger" is an offensive slur with very demeaning not-so-subtle implications.

I am not a Tea Party fan, but they don't deserve to be addressed by an offensive slur any more than racial or religious minority groups do.

Originally posted by caissad4
A bill introduced in the US Senate to tax internet purchases seems to have the blessing of the TeaBaggers. What a bunch of hypocrites !! 🙄🙄🙄🙄

What "teabaggers" are supporting this?

Originally posted by sh76
What a completely ignorant and ridiculous OP. I don't blame you for being ignorant of the facts in this case. After all, reading the actual articles rather than just the headlines is tough. But the incendiary thread title, the use of the offensive term in the OP and the series of emoticons just begs for a beatdown.

So, here goes.

First of all, even if it ...[text shortened]... trary; it's entirely in step with the federalism-based philosophy of the federal Republicans.

"Increasing state revenues is not at all inconsistent with the TP philosophy. On the contrary; it's entirely in step with the federalism-based philosophy of the federal Republicans."

I'm not so sure this is a slam dunk, or that TEA party people favor it. The federalist approach is for States to compete with one another, and that would include in taxation. Lower taxes tends to draw more inhabitants and keep those already there.

I can't see a rationale for New Yorkers paying a sales tax on stuff that is shipped from a Minnesota retailer. I don't know if it is even legal.

Originally posted by JS357
The idea that the sales tax is paid by customers is due to a deal between retailers and the state. Sellers have to submit a defined percentage of their gross receipts to the government as something conventionally called "sales tax" and they recover this by passing the cost on to their customers. Thus it is correct to say that normally "you have to pay sales ta ...[text shortened]... r seems more like government involvement in business decisions, than does the former.

The mechanics don't matter. Is it justifiable to charge a consumer purchasing a product from an out of State entity a sales tax, as the sale doesn't take place in said State.

A parallel situation exists in border areas like Massachusetts/New Hampshire, where huge malls near the border attract Massachusetts consumers to buy tax free in New Hampshire. How much travel is justified, depends on the size of the purchase.

I doubt the early residents of either of those States would be buying into this unlimited taxation position. We know about the Boston Tea Party, and the Granite States motto "Live Free of Die".

Originally posted by normbenign
The mechanics don't matter. Is it justifiable to charge a consumer purchasing a product from an out of State entity a sales tax, as the sale doesn't take place in said State.

A parallel situation exists in border areas like Massachusetts/New Hampshire, where huge malls near the border attract Massachusetts consumers to buy tax free in New Hampshire. ...[text shortened]... ition. We know about the Boston Tea Party, and the Granite States motto "Live Free of Die".

The primary transaction is between the state and the seller. "Send me X% of your gross revenue from sales in this state. How you come up with that money is up to you. Charge your customers and call it a sales tax if you want. Then that part will be tax exempt."

Originally posted by JS357
The primary transaction is between the state and the seller. "Send me X% of your gross revenue from sales in this state. How you come up with that money is up to you. Charge your customers and call it a sales tax if you want. Then that part will be tax exempt."

Ok, if that is the case, where does the charging State, say Massachusetts get the jurisdiction to tax in say Ohio or Minnesota? I guess the answer is by an unconstitutional law about to be voted on.

This doesn't touch border State issues which include cigarette smuggling, non sales tax States, dry and wet States, marijuana from legalized States to others, container deposits, and I may be forgetting some.