Reply With Quote
The only bad taxes are the ones that strike the rich, just like the only good welfare is corporate welfare and bank bailouts.
The nonbinding proposal is the first step toward allowing states to collect sales tax from e-commerce sellers
March 22, 2013, 8:50 PM — The U.S. Senate has overwhelmingly passed a nonbinding proposal to allow states to collect sales tax on Internet sellers that have no presence within their borders.
The proposal was an amendment to a 2014 budget bill that the Senate debated Friday. It was pushed by Senators Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, and Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, and was designed to give backers a sense of whether they had enough votes to push forward with final legislation to impose an Internet sales tax.
The vote showed they have plenty of backing to overcome any filibuster seeking to block a final sales tax bill. Sixty votes are needed to overcome a filibuster, and senators voted 75-24 for the nonbinding resolution. The Enzi and Durbin amendment would allow the Senate Budget Committee to include the sales tax in the budget, providing it does not increase the federal deficit.
More
The only bad taxes are the ones that strike the rich, just like the only good welfare is corporate welfare and bank bailouts.
Scott cut taxes, mainly the wealthy and corporations, in WI until the state debt is unsupportable, so he now proposes to raise regressive taxes.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...188069151.html
Population booms are very bad when that generation demonstrates very poor financial personal responsibility.
No sales tax for internet companies gives them an unfair compe ive advantage against brick and mortar stores.
The beginning of the end.
lol trying to keep the brick and mortar stores in the business who failed to accept ecommerce...fkn fail
And charging the tax gives an unfair advantage to foreign internet companies vs internet companies in the US. What you're doing is forcing Amazon to seek a sweet tax deal from Canada, and pushing them to move over there.
Good luck to the states trying to collect from a company overseas.
They can get the federal government's help collecting taxes.
The US govt can't even collect corporate income tax, never mind sales tax on Bs of sales.
Now US corps are pushing hard to import their foreign revenues tax free.
How would the federal govt help STATES collect state taxes?
Capitalism is money at risk for a reward. Removing the risk is a perversion of the notion.
OTOH, the internet marketplace has an advantage over the physical shop, and government is hungry for new revenue streams. Not saying it's right, but considerations of equity and political expedience tend toward it, global compe iveness notwithstanding.
btw, do you buy groceries online? why or why not?
not all capitalism is risky, certainly not highly risky.
The huge problem we have now is that financial sector taking extremely high (economy-destroying) risks while obtaining extremely high rewards but the public paying the cost of risks' failure. And of course, the financial sector is wagering depositors' $Bs in the financial casino.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-24-2013 at 06:55 AM.
is there an echo in here?
In which way? Passing even more laws banning certain imports? At some point it gets very expensive to artificially "level the playing field". This is a typical case of evolve or die. Taxes won't save those businesses.
Oh I understand the thirst for new revenue. But IMO the writing has been on the wall for a while when it comes to brick and mortar stores, much like the music industry selling physical media, etc.
The federal government collects taxes on foreign businesses that do business in the U.S. -- even ones without a physical presence here.
The US govt can't even collect corporate income tax, never mind sales tax on Bs of sales.
Now US corps are pushing hard to import their foreign revenues tax free.
How would the federal govt help STATES collect state taxes?
Which is where most of the tax loophole are at. Not to mention that individual and non-business taxes for foreigners are capped at 30%, sometimes even less depending on tax treaties.
Companies shift earnings to foreign subsidiaries all the time, and since the US gives tax credits for foreign income, that's how they stash money away from uncle sam's hand.
This is how you end up with GE getting tax money back despite billions in US earnings, or Google, Apple, etc ending up with a effective tax bill in the lower 10% range...
Plus I'm not sold it's in the best interest of the average american citizen in general that the US government cracks down on Amazon like they crack down on, say, gambling sites...
hmmm......Time to design an app that keeps track of all your online spending so you can claim them on your federal tax return..
Yup.
Get to work, EN.
Correct.
I'm extracting data from a 50,000 element data base of foreign tax reporting for a major US corporation. The Fed does this pretty well.
Augh. What bs. I have no clue what an "answer" would look like but the current setup blows.
this got press almost nowhere, a win for the 99%:
Senate Unanimously Votes Against Cuts to Social Security: Media Don’t Notice
There are few areas where the corruption of the national media is more apparent than in its treatment of Social Security. Most of the elite media have made it clear in both their opinion and news pages that they want to see benefits cut. In keeping with this position they highlight the views of political figures who push cuts to the program, treating them as responsible, while those who oppose cuts are ignored or mocked.
This pattern of coverage was clearly on display last weekend. Both the New York Times and Washington Post decided to ignore the Senate’s passage by voice vote of the Sanders Amendment. This was an amendment to the budget put forward by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders that puts the Senate on record as opposing the switch to the chained CPI as the basis for the annual Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).
Switching the basis for the COLA to the chained CPI is one of the most beloved policies of the Washington elite. The idea is that it would reduce scheduled benefits for retirees by 0.3 percentage points annually. This amounts to a cut of 3 percent after 10 years, 6 percent after 20 years, and 9 percent after 30 years.
If a typical retiree lives to collect benefits for 20 years the average cut in benefits over their retirement ends up being around 3 percent. This is a much bigger hit to the typical retiree, who relies on Social Security for more than two-thirds of their income, than the tax increases put into law this year were to the typical rich person.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds...epr+%28CEPR%29
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...s-tax/3805279/The Supreme Court won't referee the fight between states and online retailers over taxing Internet sales, leaving states free to tax remote sellers and increasing pressure on Congress to resolve the long-running dispute.The high court's decision Monday left intact a New York appeals court ruling that Amazon.com and most other online retailers must collect state sales taxes when they pay affiliates to promote links to their products.
By refusing to hear Amazon's case, the justices sent reverberations to a dozen states with similar laws: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont. The Illinois and Colorado laws are tied up in court.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
