25 Apr 13
Originally posted by vivifyNot so different really. Your justifying raising sales tax smacks of semantics. Raising taxes is raising taxes.
Raising sales taxes on internet purchases is completely different than raising income taxes, which is what Dems wanted to do.
Taxed
Enough
Already
Hypocrisy is Hypocrisy.. Repubs and Dems are the same. 😛
25 Apr 13
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.
25 Apr 13
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.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
25 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76The 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:
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.
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.
25 Apr 13
Originally posted by sh76An 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.
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.
25 Apr 13
Originally posted by moon1969I'm sorry about the harsh intro, but I think that the term "teabagger" is an offensive slur with very demeaning not-so-subtle implications.
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 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.
25 Apr 13
Originally posted by sh76"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."
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.
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.
25 Apr 13
Originally posted by JS357The 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.
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.
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".
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
25 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignThe 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."
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".
25 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Ok, 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.
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."
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.