I read today on Drudge that California will start taxing internet purchases and I thought a discussion might be a good idea on that. Here's Amazon's reported reaction:
QuoteAmazon has already emailed its termination of its affiliate advertising program with 25,000 websites. The letter says, in part:
(The bill) specifically imposes the collection of taxes from consumers on sales by online retailers - including but not limited to those referred by California-based marketing affiliates like you - even if those retailers have no physical presence in the state.
We oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive. It is supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside California, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors. Similar legislation in other states has led to job and income losses, and little, if any, new tax revenue. We deeply regret that we must take this action.
The new law won't affect customers, Amazon said, but added that the immediate termination of the affiliate program also applies to endless.com, myhabit.com and smallparts.com
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/amazon-306409-affiliate-california.html
That's what I thought.
No one seems too interested though.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=17794.0
Quote from: Conan71 on June 30, 2011, 01:39:24 PM
That's what I thought.
No one seems too interested though.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=17794.0
I think it's a death knell financially for any state that does it, given that Amazon has such a big presence with vendors all around the country.
One thing I believe I brought up several months ago was the "900 lb gorilla in the room" campaign Oklahoma started right before filing time about the 'use tax' and talking about how anything bought via the internet had to be claimed. I don't believe I've ever heard of anyone doing as such.
States need to be more creative about closing up their budgets. Doing this is counterproductive.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 30, 2011, 01:39:24 PM
That's what I thought.
No one seems too interested though.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=17794.0
I'm sorry I double posted this. I didn't even bother looking around. Well, I guess you and I can discuss it. ;D
Now, I do recall at least one poster that thought not taxing internet purchases was hurting the small retail business owner. That's kinda what I was looking to hear about. Personally, I buy loads of stuff from Amazon.
edited.
If no one objects, I'll put it over here. Might have not gotten much play since I did start the thread title with "Governor Moonbeam..."
Amazon is terminating thousands of agreements with their California affiliates to avoid having to collect and remit sales tax to the state of California. There's no doubt online retailing has been detrimental to sales tax collections for every state which has a sales tax, but here's the unintended consequences of potentially running upwards of 25,000 small businesses which may employ one person or a hundred out of business. The short-sightedness of such laws fails to recognize that on-line selling brings millions and billions of dollars into a state from other states and from around the world. Profits are turned into payroll and a portion of that payroll is spent in the local economy.
Yet one more reason to examine a national consumption tax much like what's laid out in the "Fair Tax" plan in order to ensure collection and distribution of sales taxes.
Personally, I see large tax grabs like this as a lazy approach to dealing with state and local solvency issues. In doing something like this, they simply worry about pissing off one company. If they dealt with the real problem, Asian and Hispanic voting blocs would retaliate at the polls. California needs to quit being a dumping ground for the rest of the world's human refuse for starters. Their education and prison systems are broke because of incredibly liberal views on immigration for far too many years.
It's going to be interesting to see how this shakes out.
"Will California's law forcing out-of-state retailers to pay sales taxes help it raise hundreds of millions in revenue? Or will it just force Amazon's affiliates out of state?
FORTUNE - California Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday signed the so-called "Amazon tax" into law. The measure forces out-of-state retailers (not just Amazon) to pay taxes on sales within the state. Earlier on Wednesday, Amazon (AMZN) sent notices to its affiliates in California, warning them that if the measure became law, the company would have to terminate its contracts with them because it's the affiliates' presence in the state that makes Amazon subject to the tax. Amazon has pulled similar maneuvers in other states where such taxes were imposed.
California, like other cash-strapped state governments, is flailing about for new sources of revenue. Proponents of the tax claim it will raise $317 million in revenue a year. But California should look around at other states that have tried this tactic: it usually doesn't work out so well.
A 1992 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Quill v. North Dakota held that online sales are not subject to taxation unless the seller has a physical presence in the jurisdiction imposing the tax. That has allowed Amazon and other retailers to undercut competition from bricks-and-mortar retailers by selling tax-free in states where it has no physical presence.
In its notice to California affiliates (technically including me, though I've never sold a thing through Amazon), the company calls the measure "unconstitutional and counterproductive." Amazon (AMZN) notes that it was "supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside California, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors."
That might be a slight mischaracterization. It's hard to imagine executives at Wal-Mart (WMT) sitting around a conference table, plotting ways to "harm" Amazon affiliates. And those companies have a point: Amazon and lots of other online retailers get to sell competing goods without having to pay the taxes the brick-and-mortar outfits must pay. That's not fair.
But fairness isn't the only consideration here. For one thing, there's that pesky Supreme Court decision. The California tax is like similar measures passed in other states in that it amounts to an end-run around that decision. Amazon might not have a physical presence in California, but its affiliates do. It's really not that simple, though, because whether through an affiliate or not, the actual transactions are between Amazon and the customer. Affiliates in the company's Associates Program simply send traffic to Amazon, and take a cut when a sale is made. In New York, only about 1.5% of Amazon's sales in that state came via affiliates before that state's "Amazon tax" was passed.
Despite the moniker, the "Amazon tax" applies to all online retailers that don't have a physical presence within California. Rebecca Madigan of the Performance Marketing Association, which opposes such taxes, says most affiliates who will be affected in fact don't work with Amazon, but with hundreds of other retailers. Some of the bigger ones include Overstock.com (OSTK) and Drugstore.com.
New York State passed its tax based on the notion that affiliates are basically storefronts for Amazon and other retailers. That measure is making its way through the courts, and Amazon is depositing the collected taxes in an escrow account until the case is settled.
In other states, such taxes have backfired, according to John Henchman of the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan group that opposes the such taxes. Henchman has noted that tax receipts have actually fallen in Rhode Island and North Carolina as a result of the imposition of "Amazon taxes." A big affiliate, FatWallet.com, fled to Wisconsin from Illinois after the latter state imposed such a tax, he notes.
California could lose 25,000 "small businesses," according to CalWatchdog, which calls itself an "independent journalism venture," but which is backed by the libertarian Pacific Research Institute. That number comes from the Performance Marketing Association. Madigan, its executive director, told me that it includes anyone who has sold at least $25 worth of goods. So the true number of people who will lose their livelihoods is hard to pin down. But losses there will surely be."
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/29/california-passes-amazon-tax-amazon-pulls-plug-on-affiliates/
They are pulling amazon webstores of businesses as well as removing their affiliate status. California is going to lose income and not get any sales tax.
Amazon is going to lose over 1/4 of their revenue. Let's see who blinks first. This should be interesting. (If it sticks, you might want to get rid of your Amazon stock due to decreased sales and profitability.)
Anyone not paying their use tax in Oklahoma?? You mean we have that many tax frauds in the state??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 30, 2011, 05:57:57 PM
Amazon is going to lose over 1/4 of their revenue. Let's see who blinks first. This should be interesting. (If it sticks, you might want to get rid of your Amazon stock due to decreased sales and profitability.)
Anyone not paying their use tax in Oklahoma?? You mean we have that many tax frauds in the state??
Mr Goodie Tax Payer here. I use the option on the Form 511 that takes a percent of your AGI.
Here's an interesting note. Apparently Amazon has no problem reporting sales to state taxing authorities where required. It seems the whole issue of collecting and remitting taxes is what has them in a snit. Still up to the taxing authority to cross check with your return, but you run the risk of an audit, I would suspect if you do not report use tax and you've had multiple Amazon transactions over the previous year.
"We do not collect sales or use taxes in all states. For states imposing sales or use taxes, your purchase is subject to use tax unless it is specifically exempt from taxation. Your purchase is not exempt merely because it is made over the Internet or by other remote means. Many states require purchasers to file a sales/use tax return at the end of the year reporting all of the taxable purchases that were not taxed and to pay tax on those purchases. Details of how to file these returns may be found at the websites of your respective taxing authorities.
Oklahoma:
For Oklahoma purchasers, the tax may be reported and paid on the Oklahoma individual income tax return [Form 511] or by filing a consumer use tax return [Form 21-1]. The referenced forms and corresponding instructions are available on the Oklahoma Tax Commission website, www.tax.ok.gov. We are required to provide the notice above for Oklahoma purchases based on Oklahoma law (HB 2359) enacted in June 2010.
South Dakota:
For South Dakota purchasers, the tax may be reported and paid on the South Dakota use tax form. The use tax form and corresponding instructions are available on the South Dakota Department of Revenue website. We are required to provide the notice above for South Dakota purchases based on South Dakota law (SB 146) enacted in April 2011."
Edited to add: It appears they may actually collect sales tax for other taxing authorities, so not sure what the snit is with California. here's the link to their tax policy page:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=468512#usetax
Red,
I use that too. Just isn't worth the effort to track all that stuff.
Amazon is just whining.
Amazon isn't just whining. This is a huge deal for them. They basically have their prices 10% lower in California because they don't pay sales tax there. They are using affiliates (who aren't exactly Amazon but get paid by Amazon) to try to come up with a reason to get their sales tax. It doesn't matter that people should legally pay the tax later when they file taxes. Right NOW it makes their items cheaper vs competitors. This is huge for them.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on July 01, 2011, 10:33:52 AM
Amazon isn't just whining. This is a huge deal for them. They basically have their prices 10% lower in California because they don't pay sales tax there. They are using affiliates (who aren't exactly Amazon but get paid by Amazon) to try to come up with a reason to get their sales tax. It doesn't matter that people should legally pay the tax later when they file taxes. Right NOW it makes their items cheaper vs competitors. This is huge for them.
But reading their tax policy page, it looks as if they are collecting sales tax in other states, or at least their affiliates are, that's what's puzzling to me. Did I misread their collection policies? Even if they had to start collecting tax in California, many people will still buy on-line for convenience and availability if they don't like to screw with their local mall. Aside from that, I would think Amazon would be losing out on a lot of revenue selling items for those 25,000 affiliates elsewhere around the globe if they stopped providing their offerings.
The more I think of this, it seems really short-sighted. California accounts for less than 2% of their global sales, I believe. What am I missing here?
My take is this. When you drive to another state to buy a beer or other alcoholic beverage and your sole intent is to consume that beverage in Oklahoma, then by the states' reasoning, you should pay the tax that Oklahoma would levy. Same with cars and other durable goods. That just isn't practical or acceptable to most citizens. Internet purchases are just like driving to Kansas for beer.
This is a huge global change in buyer behavior that business is changing to meet. The states seem unable to understand that they also have to adapt to business changes and not expect everyone to mold their behavior to meet antiquated tax systems.
California is desperate and suffers from a history of long term legislative/executive gridlock. Their solution isn't going to work. Has little to do with immigration law btw. Smaller states like OK could effect some interesting solutions considering that our legislature/executive setup is quite different and pretty much homogeneous in political outlook. This is one area we could actually lead the country if we only had the brain power to do so in OKC. We seem disposed to cutting taxes in the hopes that revenue will miraculously grow. Hasn't worked yet so we simply have a lower standard of living.
edit: Before anyone goes crazy pointing out the differences between beer purchases in Kansas vs avoiding tax altogether using Amazon I would agree. But its similar. Because of the lack of uniform consumption taxes by the states, the consumer merely does what consumers do...look for the best value or the best product and ignore state tax needs. The states are missing an opportunity if they do not meet together and create a strategy that replaces the loss of funding derived from taxing consumer purchases. Me? I wish there were a better method of funding basic government that didn't rely entirely on consumption or property ownership.
Charlie,
Huh?? You wanna rethink that?
Sales tax is not part of the price or a discount to the price. It is always added after the price, with shipping at checkout time. Amazon doesn't give CA a break on price based on sales tax included or not. They don't do that for any state.
I agree it is huge deal. They stand to lose 25% or more of sales. (CA averages between 25 and 35% of our GDP, depending on item.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 01, 2011, 11:30:33 AM
Sales tax is not part of the price or a discount to the price. It is always added after the price, with shipping at checkout time. Amazon doesn't give CA a break on price based on sales tax included or not. They don't do that for any state.
Price of product x in store: $100
Price of product x on Amazon: $100
which one is cheaper?
I'd say the one online is about 10% cheaper
Quote from: AquaMan on July 01, 2011, 10:48:05 AM
My take is this. When you drive to another state to buy a beer or other alcoholic beverage and your sole intent is to consume that beverage in Oklahoma, then by the states' reasoning, you should pay the tax that Oklahoma would levy. Same with cars and other durable goods. That just isn't practical or acceptable to most citizens. Internet purchases are just like driving to Kansas for beer.
This is a huge global change in buyer behavior that business is changing to meet. The states seem unable to understand that they also have to adapt to business changes and not expect everyone to mold their behavior to meet antiquated tax systems.
California is desperate and suffers from a history of long term legislative/executive gridlock. Their solution isn't going to work. Has little to do with immigration law btw. Smaller states like OK could effect some interesting solutions considering that our legislature/executive setup is quite different and pretty much homogeneous in political outlook. This is one area we could actually lead the country if we only had the brain power to do so in OKC. We seem disposed to cutting taxes in the hopes that revenue will miraculously grow. Hasn't worked yet so we simply have a lower standard of living.
edit: Before anyone goes crazy pointing out the differences between beer purchases in Kansas vs avoiding tax altogether using Amazon I would agree. But its similar. Because of the lack of uniform consumption taxes by the states, the consumer merely does what consumers do...look for the best value or the best product and ignore state tax needs. The states are missing an opportunity if they do not meet together and create a strategy that replaces the loss of funding derived from taxing consumer purchases. Me? I wish there were a better method of funding basic government that didn't rely entirely on consumption or property ownership.
IIRC, if you pay sales tax to another taxing authority, you are only liable for the difference between what you paid and what you would have paid in your home area, if there is a difference.
If you buy a $10.00 T-shirt in Branson, pay 6% sales tax then bring it home to Tulsa, you are supposed to pay Oklahoma a use tax of the (roughly) additional 2.6%
To all these states wanting to collect sales tax for online purchases..
what state/municipality should get the tax?
a) Where the online retailer's distribution center is?
b) Where the online retailer's headquarters are?
c) Where the billing address of the consumer is?
d) Where the home address (shipping address) of the consumer is?
e) Where the user is at the time of purchase?
I really don't see how it could be based on anything but (a)
Oklahoma doesn't have any internet businesses?? Who's fault but Oklahoma would that be?
Consumers go where the goods are cheaper.
Sales tax in Bixby is about 1% lower than it is in Tulsa.
For a large purchase it's certainly no effort to cross 101st & memorial to take advantage.
Should I send Tulsa the other 1%?? Am I cheating Tulsa?? Or is Bixby just more competitive?
This internet tax thing would be like Tulsa forcing me to pay that 1% difference or forcing Bixby businesses to report its sales to Tulsa residents, etc..
(Edit: which according to the post above, I'm apparently supposed to do??... as if consumers know that tax in Branson is 2.6% lower and keep track of $10 t-shirt purchases for tax-time)
BK, as I mentioned before, raising taxes or finding new ways to collect sales tax on out of state purchases is simply a lazy way of dealing with runaway state and local spending.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 01, 2011, 12:13:07 PM
BK, as I mentioned before, raising taxes or finding new ways to collect sales tax on out of state purchases is simply a lazy way of dealing with runaway state and local spending.
Ya, that's clear from your posts.
I didn't mean to imply that you thought the paying sales-tax differences was anything but ridiculous. As in how ridiculous we're apparently already supposed to be paying sales-tax differences.
Nobody has mentioned shipping costs. Even ground UPS and Fed-X is getting rediculous. I just bought $50 worth of airplane stuff not generally available in OK and UPS ground shipping was $26. I'd rather pay the sales tax up front and avoid the shipping.
Quote from: BKDotCom on July 01, 2011, 11:59:13 AM
Sales tax in Bixby is about 1% lower than it is in Tulsa.
Not in the Bixby, OK next to Tulsa, OK.
I forget the exact number but Bixby is over 9%. Tulsa is still around 8.6%
Conan, that's what I mean. Supposed to pay the difference isn't working. Few do so. The latest OK effort to appeal to our honesty in paying a tax voluntarily is humorous to me. We are a nation of liars, chiselers, cheats and thieves. We glorify those who excel at these characteristics. Seen the Yahoo story about the modest home in Illinois that is home to thousands of tax avoidance shelter companies? Facebook, Microsoft, Pharmaceuticals.
BK, note the difference between "consumers follow the cheapest price" vs "consumers follow the best value". They don't always do it consciously but if the former philosophy ruled there would be no Marshall's beer because everyone would buy Lone Star. The cost of travelling to Bixby, both mentally and monetarily, offsets the lower tax rate for me. The risk of internet purchasing sometimes outweighs the lower cost as well. Pictures lie, vendors lie, shippers lie.
I look forward to regional and national governors actually facing up to a new reality instead of merely talking about it then returning home to run on rabid social agendas. They could start like any new business does by taking an accounting of what their real, fixed expenses are and what it takes dollar wise to meet them. Then review which ones can be privatized or eliminated and which ones have to be operated by government for the public good. Finally, recognize how states should form regional tax bases to avoid exploiting each other.
I'm not trying to lecture, just thinking about how much better our system could be if our governance would start solving these problems instead of gay marriage bans.
Here's a thought and I throw it out for criticism.
........Jettison the sales tax burden.
........Flat rate property taxes, income taxes, estate taxes.
........Institute business licensing based on national, regional and state "footprints".
If your business presence in our state or region creates a larger dedication of infrastructure or resources, then you pay an annual licensing fee that reflects that impact. A business that actually repairs that "footprint" or enhances the development of resources pays a smaller fee or even a rebate. Small businesses may be encouraged to form by deferrals of fees or waivers of fees to accomplish the public good.
States then use those fees to revert to their basic purposes that are so clearly laid out by Libertarians. The state or region that does this could grow quite quickly.
edited for easier readability.
Quote from: BKDotCom on July 01, 2011, 11:45:05 AM
Price of product x in store: $100
Price of product x on Amazon: $100
which one is cheaper?
I'd say the one online is about 10% cheaper
Depends on the shipping....
Quote from: AquaMan on July 01, 2011, 12:51:42 PM
I look forward to regional and national governors actually facing up to a new reality instead of merely talking about it then returning home to run on rabid social agendas. They could start like any new business does by taking an accounting of what their real, fixed expenses are and what it takes dollar wise to meet them. Then review which ones can be privatized or eliminated and which ones have to be operated by government for the public good. Finally, recognize how states should form regional tax bases to avoid exploiting each other.
I'm not trying to lecture, just thinking about how much better our system could be if our governance would start solving these problems instead of gay marriage bans.
Here's a thought and I throw it out for criticism. Jettison the sales tax burden. Flat rate property taxes and income taxes. Institute business licensing based on national, regional and state "footprints". If your presence in our state or region creates a larger dedication of infrastructure or resources then you pay an annual licensing fee that reflects that impact. A business that actually repairs that "footprint" or enhances the development of resources pays a smaller fee or even a rebate. Small businesses may be encouraged to form by deferrals of fees or waivers of fees to accomplish the public good.
States then use those fees to revert to their basic purposes that are so clearly laid out by Libertarians.
Excellent points, AM.
I hope there is eventually a GOP candidate who will say "Up yours!" to the moral far right on abortion, gay marriage, and legislated morality.
The only reasons I can see there will never be a flat tax is it would make politicians irrelevant to their power base to a certain extent, let's face it, it's not just the GOP which carves out sweetheart tax loopholes for their donors and voter base. It would also likely get rid of tens of thousands of federal jobs as well as making tax attorneys and tax accountants obsolete. None of which is a bad thing.
Quote from: Hoss on July 01, 2011, 01:00:26 PM
Depends on the shipping....
Free super saver shipping on orders over $25. I was loving all the free shipping on-line this last Christmas season. I save nothing by shopping on-line with someone like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, or Target and they do collect sales tax, but it sure was nice not to have to visit one of those stores during the holiday season. That was for the bigger items. I still try to find as much stuff locally as I can.
Yes, change has an impact on those classes, but it creates an even better opportunity for them. The huge influx of capital and population into this state will keep accountants and lawyers quite busy. Lots of federal jobs end up going to newly formed private entities looking for qualified help in meeting regulations.
Regulations will still exist they simply will be internalized into a company who wishes to reduce its footprint thereby reducing the cost of doing business within a region. Of course the real crux is determining an accurate footprint but it can, and is, being done.
As far as politicians and their thirst for power, well, some things will never change but that is another discussion although I believe sanctioning more than two parties to proffer candidates is the answer. This is to me one of those nexus moments in history that my grandchildren may study in economic history classes. What did we do when our technology out ran our ability to manage it?
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 01, 2011, 12:45:51 PM
Not in the Bixby, OK next to Tulsa, OK.
I forget the exact number but Bixby is over 9%. Tulsa is still around 8.6%
Although I live in Bixby, I rarely buy anything in this town mainly because I have so much activity in South Tulsa. It is an event for me getting to 121st & Memorial. I never knew the sales taxes were higher.
Quote from: guido911 on July 01, 2011, 01:50:07 PM
Although I live in Bixby, I rarely buy anything in this town mainly because I have so much activity in South Tulsa. It is an event for me getting to 121st & Memorial. I never knew the sales taxes were higher.
Der... I did get that wrong.. anyhow, I'm sure there's some adjacent burgs somewhere where it may be worth it to cross the line for cheaper sales tax..
The thing with bixby sales tax I got wrong was... Someone bought something at Lowes in Tulsa, then returned it to the Lowes in Bixby. They got back more than they spent because of the higher sales tax in Bixby, and apparently Lowe's is doing it wrong (this was a couple years ago)
Quote from: BKDotCom on July 01, 2011, 11:59:13 AM
I really don't see how it could be based on anything but (a)
Why not f) Where the goods are shipped?
Quote from: nathanm on July 01, 2011, 06:45:03 PM
Why not f) Where the goods are shipped?
It just points out how convoluted / insane the whole sales-tax thing is.
So if I'm an Oklahoma resident and I order something from a store in Arkansas and have it shipped to Missouri.. I should pay Missouri sales tax (or the difference between MO and OK taxes)?
(I guess I intended d. "home address" to also serve as shipping address.. but ya, I guess they could be separate)
Quote from: BKDotCom on July 01, 2011, 08:37:15 PM
It just points out how convoluted / insane the whole sales-tax thing is.
Not really. The goods change hands in Missouri in your scenario (presuming the seller contracts the shipper, as is customary with consumer goods), so why wouldn't that be the appropriate place to tax the sale?
Quote from: nathanm on July 01, 2011, 08:54:05 PM
Not really. The goods change hands in Missouri in your scenario (presuming the seller contracts the shipper, as is customary with consumer goods), so why wouldn't that be the appropriate place to tax the sale?
However....
I believe if the sales tax is lower in MO than OK, you legally owe the difference to OK. Maybe not to the state but at least to the local sales tax. The way the state gets around the words "sales tax" is to call it a "use tax". Dang semantics.
Remember.... it's not your money.
Okay, if you buy something in MO at a lower tax than if you bought it in OK and return to OK with it, than you owe the difference to OK, right? So does that mean if I go somewhere with a higher tax rate and return to OK with it, than OK owes me the difference?
Quote from: custosnox on July 02, 2011, 01:01:53 AM
Okay, if you buy something in MO at a lower tax than if you bought it in OK and return to OK with it, than you owe the difference to OK, right? So does that mean if I go somewhere with a higher tax rate and return to OK with it, than OK owes me the difference?
Of course not. You were foolish to buy somewhere with a higher tax.
It goes back to motivation. If you buy in another state to avoid paying a higher tax in OK and you consume or use that product in OK the state wants the difference in tax. If you pay more than an OK tax rate they don't care.
The states are silly to try and attract border business by offering lower taxes. I don't think they do so purposely. A city along a border may try to do so but even then its usually just a matter of lower taxation in smaller cities because they provide fewer services and thus benefit from border traffic.
Our states and cities in this region are so fixated on details of administration (keeping the doors open) and social issues (gays, guns, immigration), issues they have no hope of affecting, that they are missing an opportunity to regionalize or unify certain revenue producing activities.
Driving to Kansas to buy 6pt beer, to Arkansas for auto registration or Lousiana to register your boat are examples.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 02, 2011, 09:35:54 AM
Our states and cities in this region are so fixated on details of administration (keeping the doors open) and social issues (gays, guns, immigration), issues they have no hope of affecting, that they are missing an opportunity to regionalize or unify certain revenue producing activities.
You mean those "social issues" that have constitutional implications? And trivializing immigration problems which has a profound impact on our economy weakens your argument.
Quote from: guido911 on July 02, 2011, 01:55:40 PM
You mean those "social issues" that have constitutional implications? And trivializing immigration problems which has a profound impact on our economy weakens your argument.
We're talking about how states are dealing with lowered sales tax revenues due to the bleeding off of taxable sales to the internet. As usual you bring your set of social howlings to the discussion to end it.
My argument is that while the barn burns we're rounding up all the Mexicans and gays for a hanging and making sure our guns are safe. Its silly pandering and is better dealt with in courts and Congress imo.
How exactly does spending an inordinate amount of time working against the unstoppable flow of humanity help our economic condition in this state? Do you think if we were able to immediately end illegal immigration and gay marriage that our tax base in OK would suddenly improve? Really?
Quote from: AquaMan on July 02, 2011, 02:32:02 PM
We're talking about how states are dealing with lowered sales tax revenues due to the bleeding off of taxable sales to the internet. As usual you bring your set of social howlings to the discussion to end it.
My argument is that while the barn burns we're rounding up all the Mexicans and gays for a hanging and making sure our guns are safe. Its silly pandering and is better dealt with in courts and Congress imo.
How exactly does spending an inordinate amount of time working against the unstoppable flow of humanity help our economic condition in this state? Do you think if we were able to immediately end illegal immigration and gay marriage that our tax base in OK would suddenly improve? Really?
So illegal immigration is a problem not worth discussing. Why don't you go ahead and schedule for all of us the order of importance the issues facing this country. And as for what we are talking about in this thread, I FREAKIN STARTED this thread! So get off your high horse. And incidentally, you are the one that threw out that insipid suggestion that our state government is focusing on just social issues, which led to this thread spiraling.
As for that last question, who said anything about gay marriage (which I could care less about) or illegal immigration (which bleeds off millions of our tax dollars in services) would improve our tax base? Your suggestion that our government should essentially do nothing but focusing on raising sales taxes, as well as referring to illegal immigration as merely a "social issue", speaks volumes to the strength of your position.
I would like to know if there are any studies on the actual impact California's internet sales taxes would have on raising revenue. I mean, any improvement is important. But is it worth the loss of jobs or decrease in purchasing of hard to get products which I suspect will happen.
Quote from: guido911 on July 02, 2011, 03:39:06 PM
So illegal immigration is a problem not worth discussing. Why don't you go ahead and schedule for all of us the order of importance the issues facing this country. And as for what we are talking about in this thread, I FREAKIN STARTED this thread! So get off your high horse. And incidentally, you are the one that threw out that insipid suggestion that our state government is focusing on just social issues, which led to this thread spiraling.
As for that last question, who said anything about gay marriage (which I could care less about) or illegal immigration (which bleeds off millions of our tax dollars in services) would improve our tax base? Your suggestion that our government should essentially do nothing but focusing on raising sales taxes, as well as referring to illegal immigration as merely a "social issue", speaks volumes to the strength of your position.
I would like to know if there are any studies on the actual impact California's internet sales taxes would have on raising revenue. I mean, any improvement is important. But is it worth the loss of jobs or decrease in purchasing of hard to get products which I suspect will happen.
Let's see. Title of thread "Taxing Internet Purchases". Guido throws flame bomb "constitutional issues" and "immigration". You left out your favorite, "Abortion". Start your own threads on these subjects and you'll find no response from me, its fruitless to discuss them. And by all means never meander from your strategy of NEVER answering a question or addressing facts.
FYI I just ran across one of our former state legislators while shopping today. He had term limited out and decided he had had enough of state government. Why? He volunteered, Guido, VOLUNTEERED, that once his party had become in the minority he could not get any of his bills even read. He said they only wanted to pass bills about guns, gays, immigration and abortion. All subjects he thought were better addressed at a federal level or within the courts. His experience was so dismal he doesn't think OK has a chance to better its economic position for quite some time till moral crusaders like yourself and Sally Kern are in disgrace.
I hold his viewpoint, based on experience rather than rhetoric, in greater esteem than yours.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 02, 2011, 09:35:54 AM
It goes back to motivation. If you buy in another state to avoid paying a higher tax in OK and you consume or use that product in OK the state wants the difference in tax. If you pay more than an OK tax rate they don't care.
The states are silly to try and attract border business by offering lower taxes. I don't think they do so purposely. A city along a border may try to do so but even then its usually just a matter of lower taxation in smaller cities because they provide fewer services and thus benefit from border traffic.
Our states and cities in this region are so fixated on details of administration (keeping the doors open) and social issues (gays, guns, immigration), issues they have no hope of affecting, that they are missing an opportunity to regionalize or unify certain revenue producing activities.
Driving to Kansas to buy 6pt beer, to Arkansas for auto registration or Lousiana to register your boat are examples.
This was your post I responded to. Where did I make "social issues" an issue prior to that post in this thread? You started this stupid distraction by throwing out flame bait "gays, guns, immigration" and for good measure abortion. What do those these have in common? Making light of them will trigger a response from the right which I believe you were wanting to do.
And for you, its all about raising taxes isn't it? I point out the tremendous burden illegal immigration places on Oklahoma taxpayers
after you trivialized it for no damned reason and you couldn't give a smile about it.
Now I know what this thread is about. I use Amazon almost weekly to find items I cannot locate in this state. Can anyone tell me where I can get szechuan peppercorns or where I can buy Lou Malnatis pizza in this state? If I can't get it here, why should I pay an Oklahoma sales tax.
I have come to like your strategy. I believe I shall embrace it by not reading your latest post, or many of the previous posts, and responding with what is on the top of my mind.
It occurs to me you didn't actually start this subject, Conan did. You started this thread and think that somehow makes you more special than you are. It doesn't really.
It also occurs to me that Conan brought up immigration and liberal policies gone askew in California in both his original post and his repost onto this thread. Yet, that didn't offend you or merit response. Curious. Then we both agreed that crazies from both wings of organized parties have focused on moral and social issues that have nothing to do with the business of governing. I laid out a different premise that might work for states to overcome the failed tax strategies (none of which included increasing taxes, in fact eliminated or flat rated them) in a new digital world. Neither of those things piqued your ire. Curious indeed.
Doubtless you can read, just not part of the strategy I guess. Now lets see how it works. I'll post this and briefly scan your latest post and try to misunderstand it.
Do you think government should be run like a business? You can't answer direct questions so I'll do it for you, "Why certainly A-man, doesn't everyone?" Well no oh master (de)bater, they don't but let me ask you some other questions as us Welsh are prone to do.
What business would enmesh itself into lightweight moral issues related to God, guns, gays, immigration and abortion, while letting its basic revenue generator be usurped by its competitors? What did Disney do when faced with a large number of its employees coming from the ranks of gay America? What do businesses do when faced with operating issues that are totally unrelated to their mission statements or stockholders best interests? Do they suddenly decide to start producing products that are unprofitable but make them feel good? Do they hire lawyers and pr people whose primary commitments are to truth and justice?
This is working pretty well don't you think?
Quote from: guido911 on July 02, 2011, 04:29:17 PM
And for you, its all about raising taxes isn't it? I point out the tremendous burden illegal immigration places on Oklahoma taxpayers after you trivialized it for no damned reason and you couldn't give a smile about it.
The CBO disagrees that there is a "tremendous burden" placed on any state where there have been studies on the subject conducted. Colorado, for example, nets at worst about $50 million in costs out of a $21 billion budget. So yes, there is an impact, but it's not by any means a "tremendous burden."
An Oklahoma example: In 2006, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority estimated it spent about $9.7 million on health care services for illegal aliens (80 percent of that was for childbirth). This is out of a budget of $3.1 billion, or about three tenths of one percent. Overall, less than 1% of Oklahoma's Medicaid budget goes to spending on illegal immigrants.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 02, 2011, 05:46:14 PM
I have come to like your strategy. I believe I shall embrace it by not reading your latest post, or many of the previous posts, and responding with what is on the top of my mind.
It occurs to me you didn't actually start this subject, Conan did. You started this thread and think that somehow makes you more special than you are. It doesn't really.
It also occurs to me that Conan brought up immigration and liberal policies gone askew in California in both his original post and his repost onto this thread. Yet, that didn't offend you or merit response. Curious. Then we both agreed that crazies from both wings of organized parties have focused on moral and social issues that have nothing to do with the business of governing. I laid out a different premise that might work for states to overcome the failed tax strategies (none of which included increasing taxes, in fact eliminated or flat rated them) in a new digital world. Neither of those things piqued your ire. Curious indeed.
Doubtless you can read, just not part of the strategy I guess. Now lets see how it works. I'll post this and briefly scan your latest post and try to misunderstand it.
I didn't say I started this discussion, I started this thread. Oh, and where did I say I was special. Only that I know what this thread was supposed be about. And nice try at blaming someone other else for this flame war. I'll go back and look where Conan said gay rights, abortion, immigration, and guns was less important than sales tax policy. Same old waterboy.
As for ignoring a post of yours, so what? There was nothing new you brought to the discussion other than you bringing up abortion--which I mentioned.
Still waiting for your order of importance of policy questions our legislature should follow, so far its:
1. Sales tax policy;
2.
3.
4.
.
.
.
.
100. Immigration;
101. Gun rights;
102. Gay marriage;
(the last three are obviously interchangeable)
O/T Should I pay Oklahoma sales taxes on products that are not sold in this state? If I am on vacation and happen to find an OU sweatshirt at 1/3 price of one state (say in unfriendly to Sooner nation Nebraska) in this state, do I pay that tax? Seriously, I guess we will need to have an Oklahoma customs office opened up at every access point so we provide an officer a completed Customs Declaration form so we can pay a tariff. Here's a form so you can start preparing Oklahoma's version.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRa02Dec7qqwNB1voh6YQrFfiOZiyJv8sQICqdWxJ56P2G19SYAHQ)
Quote from: nathanm on July 02, 2011, 06:12:17 PM
The CBO disagrees that there is a "tremendous burden" placed on any state where there have been studies on the subject conducted. Colorado, for example, nets at worst about $50 million in costs out of a $21 billion budget. So yes, there is an impact, but it's not by any means a "tremendous burden."
An Oklahoma example: In 2006, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority estimated it spent about $9.7 million on health care services for illegal aliens (80 percent of that was for childbirth). This is out of a budget of $3.1 billion, or about three tenths of one percent. Overall, less than 1% of Oklahoma's Medicaid budget goes to spending on illegal immigrants.
I don't want to squabble over the word "tremendous", mainly because I do not want to do a lot of research today. I did take a look at illegal immigration costs in Cali, and found that in 2004 it was more than $10B. I'd call that "tremendous", but that's just me.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 02, 2011, 05:56:28 PM
Do you think government should be run like a business? You can't answer direct questions so I'll do it for you, "Why certainly A-man, doesn't everyone?" Well no oh master (de)bater, they don't but let me ask you some other questions as us Welsh are prone to do.
What business would enmesh itself into lightweight moral issues related to God, guns, gays, immigration and abortion, while letting its basic revenue generator be usurped by its competitors? What did Disney do when faced with a large number of its employees coming from the ranks of gay America? What do businesses do when faced with operating issues that are totally unrelated to their mission statements or stockholders best interests? Do they suddenly decide to start producing products that are unprofitable but make them feel good? Do they hire lawyers and pr people whose primary commitments are to truth and justice?
This is working pretty well don't you think?
Are you PWI? What the heck are you talking about? This whole discussion is about whether we should tax internet purchases. Period. You have whined about lost tax revenue and now your talking about competition. Now, we have seen Amazon's response to this approach and now 25,000 affiliates have been shut out. Overstock has similarly responded as I understand it. That's what we can expect if Oklahoma follows suit. Is that good for Oklahoma business? Better yet, is that what Oklahoman's want? Here's an article I found:
http://www.nexusnegotiator.com/blog/oklahoma-considers-repealing-salesuse-tax-nexus-legislation/
And get freakin over with me not answering your questions. I posed several and you haven't answered all of them. Here's a few:
QuoteCan anyone tell me where I can get szechuan peppercorns or where I can buy Lou Malnatis pizza in this state? If I can't get it here, why should I pay an Oklahoma sales tax.
QuoteWhere did I make "social issues" an issue prior to that post in this thread?...What do those these have in common? Making light of them will trigger a response from the right which I believe you were wanting to do.
I have to apologize and correct something I posted earlier.
Truth is I am only partially Welsh. Mostly Irish and some Cherokee, English and French. The arguing part may be the Welsh.
If you continue to insist that God, guns, gays, abortion and immigration are the key issues that are causing this state to decline and therefore must be the primary interest of our lawmakers at the state and city level (other than maintaining your wealthy lifestyle by lowering taxes) then so be it. You and Sally will have to explain it all to your friends and constituencies when the state slides to third world status.
Another thing. You get credit for both starting this thread and killing it. No one else is responding and neither am I because you don't play fair, never have and no one wants to play with you.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 03, 2011, 10:39:25 AM
I have to apologize and correct something I posted earlier.
Truth is I am only partially Welsh. Mostly Irish and some Cherokee, English and French. The arguing part may be the Welsh.
If you continue to insist that God, guns, gays, abortion and immigration are the key issues that are causing this state to decline and therefore must be the primary interest of our lawmakers at the state and city level (other than maintaining your wealthy lifestyle by lowering taxes) then so be it. You and Sally will have to explain it all to your friends and constituencies when the state slides to third world status.
Another thing. You get credit for both starting this thread and killing it. No one else is responding and neither am I because you don't play fair, never have and no one wants to play with you.
I never freakin said they were dammit. You were the one relegating them to the bottom for no reason but to bait. And you are still baiting me by equating me to Sally Kern. And by the way, I don't see the usual apologists coming to your defense. Ever think YOU were the reason this thread died? Nah, because it's what you left off your list of not being Welsh or any other group you descended from that drives you, that of course being douchebagian.
O/T. Here is an interesting take worth the read (imo):
QuoteThe internet tax debate is a confusing one. It is often phrased as "taxing the internet," something that surely only a luddite would propose. What's really going on is that merchants and consumers are being taxed just as they always were. But there's a new wrinkle.
http://blogs.forbes.com/robertwood/2011/04/18/is-internet-tax-constitutional/
I think you are a poor reader or have trouble with comprehension. At any rate, you certainly aren't understanding what I have been doing. I took on your persona, argued with your strategies and tactics, and you couldn't stand it.
Most of what happens on these threads is analogous to kids playing on grade school playgrounds. There are a few adults who patiently stand around and moderate without prejudice or judgement while most of the kids just expend energy. Which one are you?
Quote from: guido911 on July 03, 2011, 03:26:00 PM
I never freakin said they were dammit. You were the one relegating them to the bottom for no reason but to bait. And you are still baiting me by equating me to Sally Kern. And by the way, I don't see the usual apologists coming to your defense. Ever think YOU were the reason this thread died? Nah, because it's what you left off your list of not being Welsh or any other group you descended from that drives you, that of course being douchebagian.
I am worried about you. Take a day off and relax.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 04, 2011, 09:00:23 AM
I think you are a poor reader or have trouble with comprehension. At any rate, you certainly aren't understanding what I have been doing. I took on your persona, argued with your strategies and tactics, and you couldn't stand it.
Most of what happens on these threads is analogous to kids playing on grade school playgrounds. There are a few adults who patiently stand around and moderate without prejudice or judgement while most of the kids just expend energy. Which one are you?
Funny, I thought this thread was about internet taxation and not your opinion on my persona. Maybe what I should do is bravely change my name in this forum and pretend to have a fresh start.
I have no particular opinion of your persona, I merely imitated it to show you how irritating it can be. Even you couldn't stand it! But, different strokes ya know>
Here are some quotes I made in this thread that you seemed to not have read or understood. I am glad to elucidate on them if they are still hazy-
"This is a huge global change in buyer behavior that business is changing to meet. The states seem unable to understand that they also have to adapt to business changes and not expect everyone to mold their behavior to meet antiquated tax systems."
Seems like a pretty innocuous statement of fact. States have been relying on sales tax and it no longer is working.
"I look forward to regional and national governors actually facing up to a new reality instead of merely talking about it then returning home to run on rabid social agendas. They could start like any new business does by taking an accounting of what their real, fixed expenses are and what it takes dollar wise to meet them. Then review which ones can be privatized or eliminated and which ones have to be operated by government for the public good. Finally, recognize how states should form regional tax bases to avoid exploiting each other."
This is business college stuff. Nothing outrageous. In fact it pretty conservative for me.
"Here's a thought and I throw it out for criticism.
........Jettison the sales tax burden.
........Flat rate property taxes, income taxes, estate taxes.
........Institute business licensing based on national, regional and state "footprints".
States then use those fees to revert to their basic purposes that are so clearly laid out by Libertarians. The state or region that does this could grow quite quickly.
Once again, straightforward and factual. This is pretty Libertarian in outlook rather than liberal. Because to me this is where Libertarians and business intersect and find common ground. What exactly is so bothersome to you about these quotes? Or is it a personal thing?
As I wrote in another thread, my daughter just returned from the Univ. of Georgia. In that part of the country they drink Cheerwine, a cherry soft drink. I cannot find it in Tulsa, although one store in OKC supposedly carries it. For me to get that as a treat for her, I have to use Amazon. Should I pay sales tax on that purchase? To me, that is a windfall for a state where the product is unavailable. And if you tax internet purchases, small business that rely on the internet to get their product out to market will suffer.
Here is a fair take on the Amazon tax in California.
QuoteBy law, consumers who order from out-of-state retailers are supposed to pay the tax themselves, but few do and it is difficult to enforce. And a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling forbids a state from forcing businesses to collect sales taxes unless the business has a physical presence, like a store, in that state.
With the new law, California lawmakers, like those in a handful of other states, have gotten creative about how to define a physical presence - in this case, a California online marketing affiliate.
California consumers who buy merchandise on Amazon won't be affected by Amazon's retreat, nor will the third-party sellers who sell products through Amazon.com and collect the taxes.
But it does affect thousands of California retailers, marketers, bloggers, nonprofits and others who participate in Amazon's fee-for-referral program.
Those affiliates provide a link on their own websites for certain goods sold through Amazon, and collect a fee or commission when a consumer makes a purchase on Amazon. Those fees vary from 4 percent to 15 percent of a sale.
Supporters of the proposed California law estimate the online sales tax could bring in $200 million a year.
But that estimate assumes that Amazon and other online retailers maintain their relationships with their affiliates, said Katie Jaques, a lecturer on taxation at San Diego State University.
"The state won't see those millions of dollars if these affiliates are severed," said Jaques. "And the affiliates will no longer collect their fees, so that is money that will not be coming back into the California economy."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jun/29/amazon/
Quote from: guido911 on July 04, 2011, 06:30:17 PM
And if you tax internet purchases, small business that rely on the internet to get their product out to market will suffer.
A level playing field is unfair?
Quote from: nathanm on July 04, 2011, 07:06:37 PM
A level playing field is unfair?
Level playing field? People in California are supposed to pay the tax on internet purchases. If they don't, that's the state's problem, not Amazon's. Because Amazon doesn't want to collect it, now about 10,000 affiliates in California are out in the cold and the state loses all taxes Amazon purchasers could, and should, pay.
Quote from: guido911 on July 04, 2011, 07:19:15 PM
Level playing field? People in California are supposed to pay the tax on internet purchases. If they don't, that's the state's problem, not Amazon's. Because Amazon doesn't want to collect it, now about 10,000 affiliates in California are out in the cold and the state loses all taxes Amazon purchasers could, and should, pay.
Yeah, enforcing nexus is such a terrible thing. All states should do it. This race to the bottom BS is getting old.
AquaMan,
You have been around here a lot longer than I and know that guido never listens to, or responds to anything "off script" - and let's be absolutely clear; it is the RWRE Murdochian/Cheney/Rove script.
The reality that he tries so hard to gloss over is that the lawmakers in this state have for decades - not just since the internet - recognized that mail order of any kind is a sale that is exempt from the state where the business starts and accrues to the state of receipt of the item. Be it a house kit from Sears or a new battery for the laptop. That IS the law of the land. All of the states that have sales tax. It is and has always been that way.
And along with all his other "entitlement" views, he feels he should be exempt from the law! (How ironic is that from a lawyer??)
Well, I too feel I should be entitled to be exempt from certain laws. Just because I feel like it. I feel like I should never have to pay a sales tax. Or a property tax. Or be prohibited from smoking a joint once in a while (this is the King-Dog Major "Libertarian" breakdown point for most of the RWRE.) Because I am special!!
And his disclaimer of never saying he wants to be "special" is specious, disingenuous as well as just plain old flat out untrue. It shows in virtually every post.
Now, if he wants to change the law...well, I'm on his side with that. I will campaign tirelessly to eliminate sales tax and property tax IF he will campaign on my side to eliminate marijuana laws! Both are an abomination.
(Watch/listen closely AquaMan - a hookah joke may well be on the way, even as we speak!)
Yeah, the curious thing is that I seek a level playing field as well. I really don't like that states collect sales tax. They should be eliminated. Tax a business income or charge a license fee that represents the true cost of them doing business in your state, period. The state has certain obligations that they are expected to fulfill and its increasingly difficult under the current system.
Property taxes and sales taxes are horrible ways to fund government and education.
They fluctuate so much that any budget has to be set at a small percentage of expected returns with the idea that a "safety stock" can build up to cover the slow collection periods. But our state lawmakers either spend that sinking fund or return it to taxpayers in $50 checks.
Quote from: nathanm on July 04, 2011, 07:43:17 PM
Yeah, enforcing nexus is such a terrible thing. All states should do it. This race to the bottom BS is getting old.
What race to the bottom? Oklahoma does not have a Tony Luke's cheese steak restaurant. I bought that product on the internet. Why should Oklahoma collect a tax on something it doesn't have. I have to agree with the courts that hold that if a company is not present in the state, then they should not have to collect a tax.
Another quick thing about property taxes; another really horrible feature is that once they have been raised - and ALWAYS unequally in Oklahoma, there is no going back down when the property value goes down.
Two prime examples; 1983 and 2008.
Houses in my neighborhood sold for less than 27% of the pre-Savings and Loan ripoff level from 1983 through 1985. They did not reach the pre-S&L levels again until about 1989-1990. Eight were sold at these levels. 5 through HUD repossessions, the remaining through desperate owners just trying to get out.
2008, the house prices did not drop by 70% + again, since there is always big demand for cheap little houses, but it went down by 28% for one house, 22% for another and about 15% for two others. (All this within 2 blocks of me.)
The area is still below 2007.
Property taxes on the other hand continue to rise throughout.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 04, 2011, 08:17:18 PM
Yeah, the curious thing is that I seek a level playing field as well. I really don't like that states collect sales tax. They should be eliminated. Tax a business income or charge a license fee that represents the true cost of them doing business in your state, period. The state has certain obligations that they are expected to fulfill and its increasingly difficult under the current system.
Property taxes and sales taxes are horrible ways to fund government and education.
They fluctuate so much that any budget has to be set at a small percentage of expected returns with the idea that a "safety stock" can build up to cover the slow collection periods. But our state lawmakers either spend that sinking fund or return it to taxpayers in $50 checks.
Oklahoma does charge a business activity tax on each business. Property and sales taxes are horrible? How do we fund our government without those revenue sources, by making businesses pay for everything or with an income tax? And who would make up the difference? Oh, I know.
Quote from: guido911 on July 04, 2011, 09:10:26 PM
What race to the bottom? Oklahoma does not have a Tony Luke's cheese steak restaurant. I bought that product on the internet. Why should Oklahoma collect a tax on something it doesn't have. I have to agree with the courts that hold that if a company is not present in the state, then they should not have to collect a tax.
Would you support a state that would make the same rule? If Oklahoma decides to legislate that a company with no presence in the state may not sell in that state? That is in effect what our legislators have done with >3pt alcoholic beverages. They must pass through state warehouses and pay state tax to be legally distributed here.
That court ruling sets states and businesses at odds with each other. It is a free ride for internet businesses who may locate in the Bahamas and distribute to OK through "associates" in Georgia.
Quote from: guido911 on July 04, 2011, 09:21:39 PM
Oklahoma does charge a business activity tax on each business. Property and sales taxes are horrible? How do we fund our government without those revenue sources, by making businesses pay for everything or with an income tax? And who would make up the difference? Oh, I know.
They are a horrible way to fund education and operations. I don't know how the business activity tax works or how much it brings in for the state.
H is right that property taxes are raised during inflationary times but never decline because budgets are tied to them. They are not based on the real value of the property. Then our crazy state legislators spend that money on non-education items with the hopes that casino revenues will make up the difference. Then they spend that money on something else and education budgets get cut. That is the historical behavior of our state.
Sales taxes drop during poor economic times while the fixed costs of government remain the same or even rise during the same period. That means budget shortfalls, delayed maintenance on infrastructure and government shutdowns.
The very taxpayers, rich or poor, you seem to champion are harmed equally by these flawed systems of taxation.
Any one else want some pop corn? This thread is high drama; hit the pause button until I get back.
Assuming the feds will never allow a national consumption tax with a split to the states, states might fare better in this day and age of internet commerce to get rid of sales tax and figure out a logical increase on income tax to reflect approximation of use tax. That would also possibly keep more money within a state's economy when the "free tax" advantage of the internet is taken from the picture.
The only problem I see with that is municipalities then having trouble getting their proper distributive share out of the state tax commission. That and it would somewhat render tourism as useless since the immediate jolt to tax coffers in the form of sales tax is gone. It would find it's way back in as corporate or personal taxes eventually assuming that all the profits from tourists aren't going to an out-of-state entity.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 05, 2011, 02:18:34 PM
Assuming the feds will never allow a national consumption tax with a split to the states, states might fare better in this day and age of internet commerce to get rid of sales tax and figure out a logical increase on income tax to reflect approximation of use tax. That would also possibly keep more money within a state's economy when the "free tax" advantage of the internet is taken from the picture.
The only problem I see with that is municipalities then having trouble getting their proper distributive share out of the state tax commission. That and it would somewhat render tourism as useless since the immediate jolt to tax coffers in the form of sales tax is gone. It would find it's way back in as corporate or personal taxes eventually assuming that all the profits from tourists aren't going to an out-of-state entity.
That leaves Texas out as they wrote an addendum to their state constitution some years back forbidding the addition of an income tax (if I recall correctly). No wonder they're so strapped for cash. They don't have a sales tax on groceries, nor do they have a state income tax.
Quote from: Hoss on July 05, 2011, 02:37:04 PM
That leaves Texas out as they wrote an addendum to their state constitution some years back forbidding the addition of an income tax (if I recall correctly). No wonder they're so strapped for cash. They don't have a sales tax on groceries, nor do they have a state income tax.
IIRC, I believe their property tax is insanely high. There's a trade off, regardless of the mechanism, on how a state collects tax.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 05, 2011, 02:55:21 PM
IIRC, I believe their property tax is insanely high. There's a trade off, regardless of the mechanism, on how a state collects tax.
Their excise tax on auto purchases is in the neighborhood of 8 percent (unlike the 3 percent in OK), so you have a point. I never owned while living there but do know the rent was higher. BUT, you also got paid a bit more compared to here, so in some ways, it washed out.
Quote from: carltonplace on July 05, 2011, 12:05:45 PM
Any one else want some pop corn? This thread is high drama; hit the pause button until I get back.
All I want is for Oklahoma stay out of the way of me getting my Tony Luke's cheese steak which I purchased far from here. What is the problem with that? ;)
Quote from: guido911 on July 04, 2011, 09:10:26 PM
What race to the bottom? Oklahoma does not have a Tony Luke's cheese steak restaurant. I bought that product on the internet. Why should Oklahoma collect a tax on something it doesn't have. I have to agree with the courts that hold that if a company is not present in the state, then they should not have to collect a tax.
Oklahoma should collect the tax because ownership was transferred in Oklahoma.
I like Amazon. A lot. I do not like that they gain an artificial advantage over local businesses by not collecting sales tax. The mail order rule was quite understandable in days gone by. However, in this day and age, the collection of the proper sales tax is a relatively simple matter. I think the feds should step in and make every state that collects sales or use tax on interstate commerce participate in the streamlined sales tax initiative and require that mail order businesses operating from within the US use it to collect the appropriate sales tax for the jurisdiction to which the product is being shipped.
Quote from: nathanm on July 05, 2011, 05:20:49 PM
Oklahoma should collect the tax because ownership was transferred in Oklahoma.
Please explain that one to me. Taxation is supposed to be about commerce and the cost of doing business. Transfer of ownership? That would invite my scenario where I buy an OU sweatshirt 50% cheaper in another state and I would have to declare it once I came home and pay a tariff.
My point is simple. If Oklahoma doesn't have it, or if the business has no contact with the state. it should keep its nose out of my and theirs business. Most certainly a state (like California) legislating a requirement on a foreign business (like Amazon) not having the requisite contact with that state (like California) should result in that business (like Amazon), seriously, giving that state (like California):
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yMQmBiJxCRg/TMFUNA5jzTI/AAAAAAAAAT4/Q3JEyworD1g/s320/middle_finger.png)
And that's what happened. Who lost? California internet purchasers, California Amazon affiliates, and the state of California since those that made internet purchases and paid their taxes like they were supposed to will no longer have the chance.
Uh, Amazon does arguably have nexus, which is why they canned their affiliates. It's not like Amazon has stopped selling things to people who live in California.
It's not a great idea to die on Amazon's hill, anyway. They are about the sleaziest company in America when it comes to avoiding the collection of sales taxes. They have wholly owned subsidiaries run their warehouses precisely for the purpose of attempting to avoiding nexus.
Texas tried to bludgeon them with this and they shut down the warehouse. Their position would at least be arguable if they had taken care not to ship items from their Texas warehouse to people in Texas, but they did not. Similarly, they ship items to Kansans from their warehouse in Kansas. It may be mail order, but settled law in all 50 states makes them responsible for collecting sales tax when they have a presence in the state where the item is shipped.
And, uh, sales tax is about taxing sales that take place within a state. A sale takes place where ownership is transferred. This is how Boeing manages to keep their aircraft from being taxed in Washington state. (They fly the plane out over the Pacific and transfer ownership there)
Quote from: nathanm on July 05, 2011, 09:54:36 PM
And, uh, sales tax is about taxing sales that take place within a state. A sale takes place where ownership is transferred. This is how Boeing manages to keep their aircraft from being taxed in Washington state. (They fly the plane out over the Pacific and transfer ownership there)
Also shows that taxation can hinder commerce. So then the $64,000 question becomes how do you come up with a tax system which is fair and equitable at all levels, whether it's corporate tax or sales tax on bubble gum which would be the magic number to help retain jobs.
And I guess it probably proves the point that tax avoidance is considered socially acceptable at all levels from consumers up to large manufacturers like Boeing. I'm curious how much that trick costs Washington state every year.
Either corporations flex their muscle and get favorable laws passed, like the manufacturer's and farm exemption in Oklahoma which is so broad you can drive a truck through it or they move their operations to a more tax-friendly environment. Or on a personal level, individuals are willing to risk being detected and eventually fined for failing to report use tax on a few hundred bucks worth of internet purchases so they can make their dollar stretch a little further. Amazon offers me convenience on hard-to-find items or when I don't have time to run all over town to put together multiple pieces for a project. I can have it delivered to my door. I've bought a few bike components from them but found the net price before use tax or sales tax is about the same as what I can order parts from one of my team sponsors so I buy from the team sponsor in OKC and everyone is happy, including OTC.
I used own a business which relied on 95% of it's business from mail order and used to have a much more flippant attitude about mail order and saving on sales tax when it came to my purchases. However, seeing the deteriorating condition of our infrastructure as well as what it really means to support locally-owned business whenever possible, it changed my view on personal responsibility as a citizen quite a bit.
Quote from: nathanm on July 05, 2011, 09:54:36 PM
Uh, Amazon does arguably have nexus, which is why they canned their affiliates. It's not like Amazon has stopped selling things to people who live in California.
It's not a great idea to die on Amazon's hill, anyway. They are about the sleaziest company in America when it comes to avoiding the collection of sales taxes. They have wholly owned subsidiaries run their warehouses precisely for the purpose of attempting to avoiding nexus.
Texas tried to bludgeon them with this and they shut down the warehouse. Their position would at least be arguable if they had taken care not to ship items from their Texas warehouse to people in Texas, but they did not. Similarly, they ship items to Kansans from their warehouse in Kansas. It may be mail order, but settled law in all 50 states makes them responsible for collecting sales tax when they have a presence in the state where the item is shipped.
And, uh, sales tax is about taxing sales that take place within a state. A sale takes place where ownership is transferred. This is how Boeing manages to keep their aircraft from being taxed in Washington state. (They fly the plane out over the Pacific and transfer ownership there)
Who's state should collect the tax, the customer's or the purchaser or both? Should I pay a Tax where Amazon is found and Oklahoma? I pay two sales tax. This is just not a simple question. And please point out where the "nexus" tax policy is in our constitution.
Quote from: guido911 on July 05, 2011, 03:55:52 PM
All I want is for Oklahoma stay out of the way of me getting my Tony Luke's cheese steak which I purchased far from here. What is the problem with that? ;)
I wouldn't eat a sandwich that came in the mail but that's just me.
Quote from: guido911 on July 05, 2011, 11:53:49 PM
Who's state should collect the tax, the customer's or the purchaser or both? Should I pay a Tax where Amazon is found and Oklahoma? I pay two sales tax. This is just not a simple question. And please point out where the "nexus" tax policy is in our constitution.
According to Oklahoma law, if you make the purchase in the state, whether it's at your computer terminal or standing in line at Target, you get to pay tax. If the e-tailer has brick and mortar in the state, they collect the tax for OTC, if not, you get to play the honor system and report the purchase as a use tax.
When I owned my own business, I was not required to collect sales tax on purchases by out of state buyers either for Oklahoma nor their own taxing authority. Yet, any item I bought for resale, whether that item was going to a purchaser in Oklahoma or another state was sales tax exempt.
With the company I work for now, we collect sales tax on all purchases made by customers within the state of Oklahoma unless they have a manufacturer or agriculture exemption and we also collect sales tax for the state of Kansas on purchases where the equipment will be installed in Kansas or if their primary billing address is in Kansas. We also must collect Oklahoma sales tax if a customer from another state sends their own truck or consignee to pick up a piece of equipment. However, if we arrange shipping with a dedicated or LTL common carrier, there is no sales tax. The OTC views it that the customer did not come to Oklahoma to purchase the equipment when we arrange shipping.
IOW, I've got a sales tax advantage which might run from several hundred dollars to $10,000+ over a company selling the same equipment I do in another state. A purchaser located next door to an equipment dealer selling the same equipment I do, say in Mobile, Alabama might save $5000 to $10,000 on a purchase even after paying for shipping. In my industry that usually will only apply to used equipment since most OEM manufacturers are really good about protecting sales agency territory agreements.
That's an unfortunate side-effect of state-based or locally-based sales taxes, it actually tends to drive commerce out of state, much like our corporate tax structure appears to be driving jobs, commerce, and profits overseas.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 06, 2011, 09:19:16 AM
That's an unfortunate side-effect of state-based or locally-based sales taxes, it actually tends to drive commerce out of state, much like our corporate tax structure appears to be driving jobs, commerce, and profits overseas.
From my experience corporations move overseas primarily for cheaper labour (3 to 1 in the RP at vendor price) and by extension they don't pay social security, medicare, unemployment, 401K contributions, health insurance premiums etcetera.
Quote from: guido911 on July 05, 2011, 11:53:49 PM
And please point out where the "nexus" tax policy is in our constitution.
It's the part where it says the law of the land consists of the treaties passed by the Senate, the laws/rules/regulations passed by Congress and signed by the President, and the specific content of the US Constitution. ALL are the law of the land. By definition.
It's those two parts defined BY the Constitution that trip up so many right wing extremists...somehow they come to the totally irrational - and wrong - belief that if it is not specifically written in the Constitution and the Amendments, then it somehow escapes being the law of the land. But then, when it is a displaced Australian writing their script for them, what can you expect?
Wouldn't it be nice if some of those RWRE who profess to have so much love, respect, and regard for the Constitution would actually read the thing once...not even necessarily once in a while, but just once!!
Quote from: carltonplace on July 06, 2011, 08:57:10 AM
I wouldn't eat a sandwich that came in the mail but that's just me.
It was disassembled and packed in dry ice. Sheesh, think a bit.
Quote from: carltonplace on July 06, 2011, 09:43:03 AM
From my experience corporations move overseas primarily for cheaper labour (3 to 1 in the RP at vendor price) and by extension they don't pay social security, medicare, unemployment, 401K contributions, health insurance premiums etcetera.
Yep, payroll taxes are a part of the equation. I'm really curious to see what sort of deleterious effect Obamacare will have on employment, as far as reality vs. the partisan fear mongering. Could well be that's already a part of the 9% unemployment problem. Either it's a disincentive to hire based on fact of increased cost to business (either via revenue or compliance) or pure ignorance of what it will and won't cost small business.
Quote from: guido911 on July 06, 2011, 11:50:45 AM
It was disassembled and packed in dry ice. Sheesh, think a bit.
Come on Greedo, I thought that was funny as smile
Quote from: Conan71 on July 06, 2011, 11:57:52 AM
Come on Greedo, I thought that was funny as smile
Okay. I thought he was giving me grief. Perhaps I am overly trigger happy with him. But seriously, if you know what Tony Luke's is all about, it is worth the purchase. $5.00/sandwich (comes with 8 rolls, 8-5oz packets of rib eye and provolone) plus cost of delivery (which I recall is a bit on the expensive side) isn't too bad. They are terrific sandwiches and take only 4 minutes to prepare.
I would gladly pay additional taxes for a good sandwich.
Quote from: guido911 on July 06, 2011, 01:13:10 PM
Okay. I thought he was giving me grief. Perhaps I am overly trigger happy with him. But seriously, if you know what Tony Luke's is all about, it is worth the purchase. $5.00/sandwich (comes with 8 rolls, 8-5oz packets of rib eye and provolone) plus cost of delivery (which I recall is a bit on the expensive side) isn't too bad. They are terrific sandwiches and take only 4 minutes to prepare.
Do you get a box of Guidos with the order?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 06, 2011, 02:32:18 PM
Do you get a box of Guidos with the order?
I wish.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 06, 2011, 09:19:16 AM
That's an unfortunate side-effect of state-based or locally-based sales taxes, it actually tends to drive commerce out of state, much like our corporate tax structure appears to be driving jobs, commerce, and profits overseas.
This isn't really on topic, but if you think taxes are the reason we ship jobs overseas, I've got a bridge to sell you. (Hint: Labor laws & environmental regulations)
Quote from: nathanm on July 06, 2011, 07:17:21 PM
This isn't really on topic, but if you think taxes are the reason we ship jobs overseas, I've got a bridge to sell you. (Hint: Labor laws & environmental regulations)
Tell that to Obama.
Quote(AP) End tax breaks that reward some U.S. companies with overseas subsidiaries and encourage those businesses to create jobs in other countries, President Barack Obama is telling Congress.
Yet it's an idea that has raised concerns even among some lawmakers in the president's own party.
At issue is a bill, now stalled in the Senate, that would do away with some tax credits and deferrals for U.S. companies for operations abroad.
"There is no reason why our tax code should actively reward them for creating jobs overseas," Mr. Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday. "Instead, we should be using our tax dollars to reward companies that create jobs and businesses within our borders."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/16/politics/main6964121.shtml
You know who is kinda on your side? This guy:
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcIIlcsuYiX6fdHVKD8o3S9mpMWMkCElxU6mpyRDl4wrLPDAS-oA)
(http://cdn-media.nationaljournal.com/?controllerName=image&action-get&id=7319&width=990&height=)
"
High taxes, harsh regulations, and a broken immigration system are pushing American jobs overseas, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said at a hearing in his home state on Monday.Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, held a hearing in San Jose that featured testimony from Google and Microsoft executives, among others. The hearing was titled "Policies Affecting High Tech Growth and Federal Adoption of Industry Best Practices," and Issa argued that federal regulations impede U.S. growth.
"It wasn't that long ago that the nation's research, innovation, and high tech industries were unequaled; there was no more attractive country than the United States for technology startup capital," he said in prepared remarks. "More recently, however, the shine has started to come off the apple, and there seems little doubt that federal policies and regulations have played a large role in hampering growth."[/quote]
http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/issa-high-taxes-government-rules-are-sending-u-s-tech-jobs-overseas-20110418
There may be some stupid tax loophole companies can take advantage of, but it's still not the primary issue. The primary issue is that countries like China have no environmental regulations and no real labor laws. It's pretty much like the US in the late 19th century, in that respect. Dump whatever whereever you like, and who gives a smile if the employees are being poisoned by the production process.
I'm generally in favor of free trade, but it's ridiculous that we allow free trade with countries that don't have rules that are even in the same ballpark as the developed world. Whenever companies can get away with externalizing cost, they do (Understandably! They are profit-seeking enterprises, after all), and shipping jobs overseas is just another example of that in a long line.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 06, 2011, 02:18:51 PM
I would gladly pay additional taxes for a good sandwich.
I'm serious, it's really is good but the penalty is the shipping cost. I'll pay it. I watch Man v. Food all the time and would like to experience some of the food highlighted in that show. After I finish with my National Coney Island chili dog kit:
http://store.nationalconeyisland.com/c-2-coney-kits.aspx
I am going for Ben's Chili Bowl:
http://www.benschilibowl.com/ordereze/Products/Products.aspx?CatID=88
On one of MvF food challenge, he took on the Shut Up Juice challenge in Arkansas. I bought it as well, but frankly I'm scared sh!tless of trying it--after seeing this (go to 1:18 just for the expression):
Back o/t, I would like to know why Oklahoma has any interest in taxing a product wholly unavailable within its borders and what legal basis it has to force a foreign company from doing anything.
Quote from: nathanm on July 06, 2011, 07:41:48 PM
There may be some stupid tax loophole companies can take advantage of, but it's still not the primary issue. The primary issue is that countries like China have no environmental regulations and no real labor laws. It's pretty much like the US in the late 19th century, in that respect. Dump whatever whereever you like, and who gives a smile if the employees are being poisoned by the production process.
I'm generally in favor of free trade, but it's ridiculous that we allow free trade with countries that don't have rules that are even in the same ballpark as the developed world. Whenever companies can get away with externalizing cost, they do (Understandably! They are profit-seeking enterprises, after all), and shipping jobs overseas is just another example of that in a long line.
Come on Nate, don't do this again. Obama did not say "some stupid tax loophole companies can take advantage of" was the reason jobs were going overseas. He said the exact opposite of your point unequivocally as follows: "There is no reason why our tax code should actively reward them for creating jobs overseas," and "Instead, we should be using our tax dollars to reward companies that create jobs and businesses within our borders."
The rest of your post we should take up in another thread (even though this instant discussion is O/T)
Quote from: guido911 on July 06, 2011, 08:14:53 PM
Come on Nate, don't do this again. Obama did not say "some stupid tax loophole companies can take advantage of" was the reason jobs were going overseas. He said the exact opposite of your point unequivocally as follows: "There is no reason why our tax code should actively reward them for creating jobs overseas," and "Instead, we should be using our tax dollars to reward companies that create jobs and businesses within our borders."
The rest of your post we should take up in another thread (even though this instant discussion is O/T)
We could change Oklahoma's tax code to give companies $1 to relocate to Oklahoma.
But I think that $1 corporate welfare could be better spent elsewhere.
And I hardly think the $1 would be a deciding factor in any companies decision to locate to OK.
Yes Obama said the tax code rewards companies locating overseas.. He never said it's the leading incentive or how much the tax reward is. Is it the cake, the icing on the cake, or simply a decorative candle?
Quote from: BKDotCom on July 06, 2011, 09:34:39 PM
We could change Oklahoma's tax code to give companies $1 to relocate to Oklahoma.
But I think that $1 corporate welfare could be better spent elsewhere.
And I hardly think the $1 would be a deciding factor in any companies decision to locate to OK.
Yes Obama said the tax code rewards companies locating overseas.. He never said it's the leading incentive or how much the tax reward is. Is it the cake, the icing on the cake, or simply a decorative candle?
Aside from compliance and regulatory costs, the real issue is lower payroll costs, period. No matching SS contribution, no FICA, no pensions and apparently plenty of ways to shelter income earned on foreign operations as well.
Taxes send jobs overseas. I think Nathan should give me the damn bridge after those mental gymnastics.
Quote from: BKDotCom on July 06, 2011, 09:34:39 PM
Yes Obama said the tax code rewards companies locating overseas.. He never said it's the leading incentive or how much the tax reward is. Is it the cake, the icing on the cake, or simply a decorative candle?
Then why didn't Obama talk about the cake and icing? Are regs and labor laws a bit sensitive to his electorate?
Much better conversation on this and other tax issues on CNBC (Squawk Box) right now. Warren Buffett and Kent from Coca Cola advocate uniformity of taxation globally as well as nationally and point out that 40% of American taxes come from payroll taxes rather than capital gains which is the source of their wealth. They find it odd that they are protected like bald Eagles while the majority of the tax base is at risk.
According to them, companies locate overseas because of low labor availability and lower taxe rates. They did not mention regulation or environmental concerns though I could have missed that. Companies also play off those countries against each other once they have relocated overseas. Uniformity would mitigate that.
Buffet: "The best investment for companies right now is lobbyists"
"I could solve the debt ceiling crisis in 5 minutes. Enact legislation that says when the debt exceeds 3% of GDP all of Congress is excluded from re-election."
"The top 400 of the richest taxpayers in America were paid an average of 16 million a year 10 years ago and taxed at 27%. That same 400 is over 40 million a year now and due to constant tax cuts pay even less than they did then"
"Trying to solve the debt problem at the barrel of a gun is silly and no one knows what the result of failure to extend the debt ceiling will do."
Both of them remain extremely optimistic in the face of seemingly poor numbers that they put little stock in.
My quotes may not be perfect but reasonable for my age. ;)
Don't we play the same game domestically that Buffet and Kent mention internationally when cities, counties, and states offer tax incentives for companies to locate in their area? In totality it explains the inordinate complexity to our tax code both from a business and personal basis as we attempt to let the "tax tail" wag the dog of business and personal decision making...
Aquaman,
They don't just find it odd, they find it WRONG! And have been publicly stating that for years!
And here is an interesting tidbit about News Corp...that eternal font of evil by a displaced Australian who wants to rule the world. You remember him - the puppet master for the entire Murdochian Empire...the head of the Murdoch/Cheney/Rove triumvirate.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Murdoch-Gets-Dangerous-for-bloomberg-1666537171.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=
Quote from: AquaMan on July 07, 2011, 08:10:00 AM
Much better conversation on this and other tax issues on CNBC (Squawk Box) right now. Warren Buffett and Kent from Coca Cola advocate uniformity of taxation globally as well as nationally and point out that 40% of American taxes come from payroll taxes rather than capital gains which is the source of their wealth. They find it odd that they are protected like bald Eagles while the majority of the tax base is at risk.
According to them, companies locate overseas because of low labor availability and lower tax rates. They did not mention regulation or environmental concerns though I could have missed that. Companies also play off those countries against each other once they have relocated overseas. Uniformity would mitigate that.
Buffett & Kent are dead donkey wrong. Nathan says taxes have nothing to do with it, so they must be complete morons. 8)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 07, 2011, 08:40:33 AM
Buffett & Kent are dead donkey wrong. Nathan says taxes have nothing to do with it, so they must be complete morons. 8)
Its all in how you spin it. Is the non renewal of a temporary tax cut considered a tax hike? You think so but I don't.
Taxes are only a part of the equation and we all know that. Regulation, low labor cost, environmental demands and taxes all play a part. Just because I took a quote from these two guys referring to taxation doesn't negate the other reasons. Neither does Obama's remark about taxes.
Quote from: bokworker on July 07, 2011, 08:27:42 AM
Don't we play the same game domestically that Buffet and Kent mention internationally when cities, counties, and states offer tax incentives for companies to locate in their area? In totality it explains the inordinate complexity to our tax code both from a business and personal basis as we attempt to let the "tax tail" wag the dog of business and personal decision making...
Somebody use this as their tag line! Good point.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 07, 2011, 08:32:32 AM
Aquaman,
They don't just find it odd, they find it WRONG! And have been publicly stating that for years!
And here is an interesting tidbit about News Corp...that eternal font of evil by a displaced Australian who wants to rule the world. You remember him - the puppet master for the entire Murdochian Empire...the head of the Murdoch/Cheney/Rove triumvirate.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Murdoch-Gets-Dangerous-for-bloomberg-1666537171.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=
Didn't Nostramus actually refer to them by name? Spread that along please...
Quote from: Conan71 on July 07, 2011, 08:40:33 AM
Buffett & Kent are dead donkey wrong. Nathan says taxes have nothing to do with it, so they must be complete morons. 8)
Did I miss something? Taxes are a percentage of consumption and/or profit. In this country, less than 40% on whatever the tax applies to. Workers in China are much less than 60% of the cost of workers in the US. Ergo, anyone basing their decision primarily on the tax code isn't seeing very clearly.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 07, 2011, 08:32:32 AM
And here is an interesting tidbit about News Corp...that eternal font of evil by a displaced Australian who wants to rule the world. You remember him - the puppet master for the entire Murdochian Empire...the head of the Murdoch/Cheney/Rove triumvirate.
You asked for it:
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_orKSv5o-lVVBhATWm2YQcsY-BUCv5IwVUgml3O0sDBHhTymTig)
Notice how quick Rupert pulled the plug on that paper - when the light of day comes to dark places, the roaches and other vermin must scramble quickly to get out of sight again. Lest the British government be forced by the popular opinion to stop the latest takeover of media by the Murdochians.
guido,
You have become a slacker - that's the best one you can find??
I liked guido's picture. It seemed to show a very efficient delivery system to me.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 08, 2011, 12:45:50 PM
I liked guido's picture. It seemed to show a very efficient delivery system to me.
Only if you crave the eye burn.
Quote from: guido911 on July 07, 2011, 05:10:19 PM
You asked for it:
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_orKSv5o-lVVBhATWm2YQcsY-BUCv5IwVUgml3O0sDBHhTymTig)
kinda reminds me of college . . .
Ok, all I need is two dowels that cue-tip holder from your bathroom, some foil, and three feet of copper tubing.
You don't have any copper tubing?
Then just get me a potato, three gum wrappers and a toothpick.
I think that's wrong, they are supposed to be creating jobs instead they made amazon drop 25k affiliaytes in california. that just seems wrong
http://www.asplundh.org