GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-09-2013, 13:22   #226
swoh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlDane View Post
Where have I ever defended those things? Are you suggesting that because some unfair regulations exist it means more is just fine?

You keep bringing up small businesses being hurt by this when in reality they are being crushed by internet competition who are given a significant advantage by being exempt from collecting sales tax.

Why not apply all regulations evenly across the board and let them compete in the market place?
Trying to correct regulatory inequalities one at a time is, itself, imposing an inequality. Some inequalities are fundamental, mechanistic results of the market itself, like economies of scale that make it possible for large business to achieve better pricing per unit, and will never be undone.

How so? Large corporations usually have locations in most, if not all states, thus must collect taxes for these jurisdictions. Additionally, large corporations have the kind of manpower and resources that make dealing with the regulatory burden of 9600+ tax districts far less costly and problematic than for small businesses, so the requirement that all can collect sales taxes for these districts because they are on an equal footing is false.

Last edited by swoh; 05-09-2013 at 13:22..
swoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 13:25   #227
swoh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlDane View Post
Where have I chosen to pick a single government regulation to make fair? I've stated many times in this and other threads that all government regulation should be applied evenly.
But you've chosen to support a piece of govt. legislation that addresses only a single aspect of unfairness - and that itself is unfair. Until you support global govt. prohibitions on special treatment for all business, you will only burden some businesses more than others - we could wait decades for all the fovoritism to be undone and millions of small businesses could fold while we're waiting.
swoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 13:32   #228
swoh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlDane View Post
B&M businesses don't keep staff at each location to deal with sales tax issues, it's generally handled at a corporate office.

Where have I ever defended those things? Are you suggesting that because some unfair regulations exist it means more are just fine?

You keep bringing up small businesses being hurt by this when in reality they are being crushed by internet competition who are given a significant advantage by being exempt from collecting sales tax.

Why not apply all regulations evenly across the board and let them compete in the market place?
I agree with that to some extent, but there are still duties that involve local personnel and even if there were none, large companies have far more resources to throw at the issue and can do more with a given number of FTEs than can a small business with a single location.

Are you going to magically undo all regulations that affect business at the same time? Because, if not, undoing some regulations while leaving others in place for some period of time, will only create new inequalities.
swoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 13:33   #229
HarlDane
Senior Member
 
HarlDane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Joaquin Valley
Posts: 6,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by swoh View Post
But you've chosen to support a piece of govt. legislation that addresses only a single aspect of unfairness - and that itself is unfair. Until you support global govt. prohibitions on special treatment for all business, you will only burden some businesses more than others - we could wait decades for all the fovoritism to be undone and millions of small businesses could fold while we're waiting.
We will never get sweeping legislation that eliminates all unfair government regulation. Things must be changed one issue at a time.

You keep addressing small business, but are only taking internet based small businesses into account. There are thousands of B&M small businesses, who make up the backbone of the economy, who are suffering every day due to online competitors who aren't subject to the same regulations.
__________________
-HarlDane-
"Son of the San Joaquin"
The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly. A. Einstein
HarlDane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 13:33   #230
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by swoh View Post
But you've chosen to support a piece of govt. legislation that addresses only a single aspect of unfairness - and that itself is unfair.
It doesn't even address the single aspect of unfairness. It just moves the "unfairness" so the weight of that "unfairness" it is borne by a different party.

Wal-Mart, Amazon don't care because they're already big enough that they're either already doing it anyway (Wal-Mart has tons of physical locations, so they already have to do it) or they can absorb the cost of whatever they're not already doing.

The guy whose business is supplying something using internet-only orders where he only has one physical location in the jurisdiction of one single state - that's the guy who is going to get hit.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 05-09-2013 at 13:34..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 13:36   #231
swoh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
It doesn't even address the single aspect of unfairness. It just moves the "unfairness" so the weight of that "unfairness" it is borne by a different party.

Wal-Mart, Amazon don't care because they're already big enough that they're either already doing it anyway (Wal-Mart has tons of physical locations, so they already have to do it) or they can absorb the cost of whatever they're not already doing.

The guy whose business is supplying something using internet-only orders where he only has one physical location in the jurisdiction of one single state - that's the guy who is going to get hit.
REad some of what I just posted and you'll see that I agree with you, even if I wasn't as clear as I should've been.
swoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 13:37   #232
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlDane View Post
There are thousands of B&M small businesses, who make up the backbone of the economy, who are suffering every day due to online competitors who aren't subject to the same regulations.
So why should the internet businesses have a disadvantage in comparison to the B&M businesses? Those small-business B&M won't have to deal with 50+ different sales taxes when they have a single physical location. You don't see that as a burden?

And, I write code for a living. "There will be software" is not a magic bullet, it's-all-gonna-be-hunky-dory thing. That software will more than likely not be free and I can tell you - I might take a deal where I'd maintain such software for *one* state. But 50? Keeping that *correctly* updated is going to be a *nightmare*.

Like I said in my earlier post - having the internet businesses and the B&M businesses collect sales tax in the state they actually have physical locations would be "fair". This is not about "fair", this is about "I'm a state over here, that business over there sold something to somebody in my state, and I want to force them to enforce my laws for me even though their business isn't subject to my laws in the first place, because that is more convenient for me, the state, than me, the state actually trying to enforce the laws on the people that *are* subject to my laws and therefore to paying my sales tax"
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 05-09-2013 at 13:41..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 13:39   #233
swoh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlDane View Post
We will never get sweeping legislation that eliminates all unfair government regulation. Things must be changed one issue at a time.

You keep addressing small business, but are only taking internet based small businesses into account. There are thousands of B&M small businesses, who make up the backbone of the economy, who are suffering every day due to online competitors who aren't subject to the same regulations.
But they have the freedom to go online to sell their products also, though it would be hard to sell hamburgers and ice cream cones that way, but those businesses that do don't have to worry about competition from the internet anyway. However, where the internet gives certain business segments an advantage over another small business in that segment, then the market allows them to make the same leap and accrue the same advantages.
swoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 13:46   #234
OldSchool64
Platinum Membership
Senior Member
 
OldSchool64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,769
Anyone know if the House is likely to pass this?

I'm not getting into the debate about this, but I will say...
I don't think more revenue for our Governments will not solve many problems. For me the problem seems to be with the proper allocation of the funds they already have.
__________________
still living & learning

Last edited by OldSchool64; 05-09-2013 at 13:49..
OldSchool64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 17:29   #235
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,392
I think it pretty much sucks, but it is not a huge surprise.....
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 17:57   #236
Big Bird
NRA Life Member
 
Big Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 10,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlDane View Post
For me, this isn't about revenue collection, it's about government policies that create distinct advantages for certain groups while at the same time placing burdens on their competition.

Leveling the playing field is generally not the role of government, but in this case it's only leveling that which the government skewed to begin with.

OK, I'll be your Huckleberry...

Since you claim certain "winners" are put at a distinct disadvantage because the government taxed them while they did not tax the other businesses I would submit the following:

Since: High taxes harm business (you admit it yourself and I agree!)

Therefore: We should eliminate high taxes on all businesses.

NOT: Therefore, we should highly tax all businesses.


You see the flaw in your argument?

__________________
Big Bird,

“Est Nulla Via Invia Virute”
Big Bird is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 18:12   #237
Louisville Glocker
Urban Redneck
 
Louisville Glocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 2,119
Personally, I'm not in favor of sales tax in general because it is a regressive tax. For those of you not up in the econ lingo, that means it is going to hit the poorer folks disproportionately more than the richer folks. That is simply because poor folks tend to spend all of their discretionary income (which will then be taxed at 5 or 6 or 7 percent), whereas richer folks will only spend a small amount of their income on purchases. Thus the richer folks won't get taxed on a bunch of that extra "left over income." But the poor folks get taxed on it all. (of course that disregards income tax to begin with, but it is relevant, because it talks about poor folks getting taxed on everything and rich folks only getting taxed on a little chunk). Is that "fair?" It is fair if you want to screw the poor and middle classes, who live week to week, month to month, and you want to spare those who have excess "discretionary income."

But yeah, internet sales tax is coming eventually. It is only a matter of time.
__________________
Louisville Glocker
Louisville Kentucky
G19 G26 G30 Sig 2340 357 Beretta U22 (kid's) Two Saiga 12 Two Draco 7.62x39 "pistols" Colt 6920 Saiga SGL21-94, M92 Krinkov "pistol," PSA Patrol Carbine Saiga 223 CCDW KY
Louisville Glocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 19:16   #238
Narkcop
Senior Member
 
Narkcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 2,678
No offense meant but damn are you smoking crack?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisville Glocker View Post
Personally, I'm not in favor of sales tax in general because it is a regressive tax. For those of you not up in the econ lingo, that means it is going to hit the poorer folks disproportionately more than the richer folks. That is simply because poor folks tend to spend all of their discretionary income (which will then be taxed at 5 or 6 or 7 percent), whereas richer folks will only spend a small amount of their income on purchases. Thus the richer folks won't get taxed on a bunch of that extra "left over income." But the poor folks get taxed on it all. (of course that disregards income tax to begin with, but it is relevant, because it talks about poor folks getting taxed on everything and rich folks only getting taxed on a little chunk). Is that "fair?" It is fair if you want to screw the poor and middle classes, who live week to week, month to month, and you want to spare those who have excess "discretionary income."

But yeah, internet sales tax is coming eventually. It is only a matter of time.
Those poor you are talking about are already on every kind of government assistance program you can imagine that us RICH are paying for. Damn right they should be taxed for what they are buying.
Narkcop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 19:21   #239
tslex
Senior Member
 
tslex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,219
Article 1 Section 7.

Why doesn't that settle the issue?
tslex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 19:45   #240
jdeere_man
CLM Number 26
Charter Lifetime Member
 
jdeere_man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NW Missouri
Posts: 3,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by tslex View Post
Article 1 Section 7.

Why doesn't that settle the issue?
I'm sure you mean section 9

Quote:
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
But that is a good question. Of all the people who think it is a good idea I have not heard one of them address that yet.
__________________
Be weary of a summit that begins with sharing bread; for the sated man is at his weakest.
jdeere_man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 19:46   #241
1955mercury
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 438
This is going to be very complicated and require a lot of new government employees to over see it. If you have a retail business in a state you have to get a retail tax number. Then you have to send in the sales tax you collect either monthly or quarterly on a form using that retail tax number. So in this case, every business in every state that sells in other states will need to get a retail tax number from the states it sells in. Then they will have to mail in the sales tax for each sale they make to someone out of state to that state. Then someone in each state will have to keep records of which businesses in which states sold products to residents in their state. I think the cost of implementing such a program will far out weight any benefit the states see from the taxes.
1955mercury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 19:47   #242
AZson
Senior Member
 
AZson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Tucson
Posts: 3,017
I don't think this is good news at all, my state has no right to tax what I buy in another state. I'm pretty sure the GOP will kill it.
__________________
G17 G27 G29 G35 G38 NRA GSSF
NEED A GOOD GUN? See your local ATF (AKA F-troop) agent. He will get you one fast and furiously.
AZson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 19:47   #243
tslex
Senior Member
 
tslex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdeere_man View Post
I'm sure you mean section 9



But that is a good question. Of all the people who think it is a good idea I have not heard one of them address that yet.
Nope. Art 1 Sec 7:

"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
tslex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 20:25   #244
jdeere_man
CLM Number 26
Charter Lifetime Member
 
jdeere_man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NW Missouri
Posts: 3,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by tslex View Post
Nope. Art 1 Sec 7:

"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
Those who agree with the bill will tell you it does not raise Revenue.

I'm not saying I agree with the bill just for clarity.
__________________
Be weary of a summit that begins with sharing bread; for the sated man is at his weakest.
jdeere_man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 20:53   #245
swoh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZson View Post
I don't think this is good news at all, my state has no right to tax what I buy in another state. I'm pretty sure the GOP will kill it.
Guess again, RINO introduced it and my RINO Sen and many others supported it.
swoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 20:57   #246
swoh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narkcop View Post
Those poor you are talking about are already on every kind of government assistance program you can imagine that us RICH are paying for. Damn right they should be taxed for what they are buying.
Then they're going to need yet another program to make up for the money they won't get to keep, and do you really think the poorest folks shop on the internet? It is likely lower-middle class families, many rural, who barely get buy who will get hurt most.
swoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 20:59   #247
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by swoh View Post
REad some of what I just posted and you'll see that I agree with you, even if I wasn't as clear as I should've been.
Didn't mean it as disagreement - meant it as a different statement to get the point across clearer. Call it an aside, rather than disagreement
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 21:39   #248
Detectorist
Senior Member
 
Detectorist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Robertsville, MO
Posts: 7,555
This thread just confirms what I've known for a long time...folks on here, and in general, will use every excuse under the sun to avoid paying more taxes..they prefer that others pay more...

As I've said before, most of us are net consumers of tax money and services, hence, we don't really pay our fair share..
__________________
NASM-Certified Personal Trainer

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place”. George Bernard Shaw
Detectorist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 21:50   #249
HarlDane
Senior Member
 
HarlDane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Joaquin Valley
Posts: 6,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird View Post
OK, I'll be your Huckleberry...

Since you claim certain "winners" are put at a distinct disadvantage because the government taxed them while they did not tax the other businesses I would submit the following:

Since: High taxes harm business (you admit it yourself and I agree!)

Therefore: We should eliminate high taxes on all businesses.

NOT: Therefore, we should highly tax all businesses.


You see the flaw in your argument?

No sales tax at all might be better (depending on what it was replaced with), but the proposed law is better than the current system that creates a significant advantage for online retailers.
__________________
-HarlDane-
"Son of the San Joaquin"
The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly. A. Einstein
HarlDane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 22:00   #250
HarlDane
Senior Member
 
HarlDane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Joaquin Valley
Posts: 6,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
So why should the internet businesses have a disadvantage in comparison to the B&M businesses? Those small-business B&M won't have to deal with 50+ different sales taxes when they have a single physical location. You don't see that as a burden?

And, I write code for a living. "There will be software" is not a magic bullet, it's-all-gonna-be-hunky-dory thing. That software will more than likely not be free and I can tell you - I might take a deal where I'd maintain such software for *one* state. But 50? Keeping that *correctly* updated is going to be a *nightmare*.
It's certainly a burden to deal with multiple tax jurisdictions, but B&M retailers deal with the problem all the time. If the burden is too much for certain retailers, they should limit the scope of their business to what they can realistically handle, not use the government to give them an advantage other businesses can't get.

Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Like I said in my earlier post - having the internet businesses and the B&M businesses collect sales tax in the state they actually have physical locations would be "fair". This is not about "fair", this is about "I'm a state over here, that business over there sold something to somebody in my state, and I want to force them to enforce my laws for me even though their business isn't subject to my laws in the first place, because that is more convenient for me, the state, than me, the state actually trying to enforce the laws on the people that *are* subject to my laws and therefore to paying my sales tax"
If their not subject to the laws of the other States, what would compel them to pay?

I'm also don't find the "physical presence" argument to have much weight. There have been huge paradigm shifts in how business is done. Online retailers have a presence in every location they ship to.


Even if you don't believe in forcing any business to collect sales tax or if you don't believe in sales taxes altogether, I can't see how you can argue with:

nobody collects sales taxes > everybody collects sales taxes > some collect sales taxes and some don't
__________________
-HarlDane-
"Son of the San Joaquin"
The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly. A. Einstein

Last edited by HarlDane; 05-10-2013 at 14:38..
HarlDane is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:57.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,203
421 Members
782 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42