backtop


Print 191 comment(s) - last by eskimospy.. on Feb 25 at 7:38 PM

Lawmakers hope to gather $150M USD in additional sales taxes from residents

As the famous Beatles song Taxman goes, "If you drive a car, I'll tax the street; if you try to sit, I'll tax your seat."

In California, amid a post recession tax-revenue stall and a host of expensive social projects including alternative energy grants and government benefits for illegal immigrants, Californian lawmakers are eying new sources of tax revenue.  Among the most tempting targets is Amazon.com, the world's largest online retailer.  

Seattle-based Amazon has no physical presence in California -- no warehouses, no offices, and no stores -- thus it cannot be taxed in California according to a 1992 Supreme Court decision that offered protection against taxes on interstate commerce.  The so-called "nexus" provisions mean that you can currently buy anything from diapers to a plasma TV on the e-tailer without Amazon being responsible for paying a dime of sales tax.

The key phrase is "responsible".  In this case, the responsibility of paying sales tax legally rests on citizens, 
not the business itself according to legal precedent.  However, no one seems to own up to the online purchases, so the net result is that goods are being purchased with essentially no sales tax.

That's helped the business grow tremendously, but has angered lawmakers.

Now Californian Democrats are looking to pass a new bill aimed at collecting $150M USD annually in new taxes from e-tailers.  Describes Assembly tax committee Chairman Charles Calderon (D-Montebello), "[Amazon] built an entire business model based on tax avoidance."

The bill already passed the state Senate and is expected to sail through the state Assembly as well. 

Similar laws are popping up in other states as well.  North Carolina, Rhode Island, and New York all have laws on the books that tighten collection procedures.  And Virginia, Illinois, Colorado,Texas, and Hawaii are considering similar measures.

The key to most of the laws is internet connections.  According to the new Californian legislation, Amazon 
does have a physical presence in California as it considers internet infrastructure a "presence".  So according to the state, nexus protections don't apply.

Amazon, though, whose founder once considered locating the company's headquarters on a remote island or Indian reservation to avoid taxes, is fighting the legislation in multiple states, though, declaring it illegal.  It has significant leverage, too.  It and fellow e-tailer Overstock.com have multiple state contracts, which they have threatened to terminate if the bill goes through.  last year California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill, for fear of such retaliation.

The governor's spokespeople said that the bill would be a "tough sell" for the governor to support after vetoing the similar bill last year.  Still some Democrats are hopeful that the bill will pass.  States Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego), "California is big enough that we should not submit to that kind of blackmail."

She and other state Democrats state that if Gov. Schwarzenegger doesn't pass a bill, his successor when his term limit expires in a year likely will.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

California: The Rotting Corpse
By lamerz4391 on 2/22/2010 12:15:41 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, I live in CA. It is a beautiful state tainted by the stench of lifelong bureaucrats who do nothing but seek to expand the scope of government and spend the state into oblivion. Endless tax bills on everything from soda, to cigarettes, to cheeseburgers, and now Amazon. It's pathetic how a once glorious state is now nearly bankrupt despite putting an ever larger burden on its citizens. Nearly 10% state income tax, plus 9% sales tax, plus gas and all the other taxes. And it's not enough. The CA state government is a beast with a hunger that cannot be satiated.

It's no wonder Amazon is so popular, people can get an immediate 10% discount (via tax savings) by buying from them as opposed to a local store. But the politicians only see the potential tax revenue. They refuse to consider the impact to the consumer and why the consumer chooses Amazon, and react accordingly. Maybe if the sales tax wasn't so high, consumers would consider local options more. The state would reap the sales tax from the additional purchases, and increase in-state business tax revenue.

New state slogan: California, The Rotting Corpse




RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By walk2k on 2/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By v1001 on 2/22/2010 12:53:11 PM , Rating: 4
And California just raised the income tax more this year. My Dad always gets back about $10,000 every year. This year he had to pay $120. I can't imagine how badly that is going to affect retail sales in California. A lot of surprised people out there who are suddenly going to realize they need to tighten up even more and feel scared about their finances. Last thing you want in an already bad economy.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By lamerz4391 on 2/22/2010 1:00:00 PM , Rating: 1
"people out there who are suddenly going to realize they need to tighten up even more and feel scared about their finances"

Fear is a powerful weapon.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By knutjb on 2/22/2010 7:38:39 PM , Rating: 4
The liberals, in Ca and elsewhere, treat taxes as a simple math function i.e. if we tax x amount we will get x dollars.

They always miss the biggest part of taxes human emotion i.e. raising taxes = lower revenues. Look at 1912 Fed income taxes and what happened through 1924. Compare rate vs revenues. When people feel over taxed they resist by doing whatever they can to avoid paying them. That is the quiet protest before a much bigger one i.e. Prop 13.

quote:
States Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego), "California is big enough that we should not submit to that kind of blackmail."


Ok, who is blackmailing whom? I, as a fifth gen Californian, cannot afford to live there partly because of taxes. As a resident of another state I still don't want to pay for California's gross fiscal mismanagement. When they fail, and they will, they will demand for all the other states to fix their problem with more money and no say as to how they must fix it. They must live within their means just like the rest of us. STOP SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY. They keep trotting "we'll have to cut critical services" BS. Fine cut it if you have too but I know there are many other places in their massive spending that can be cut first.

Time to sacrifice the liberal's sacred cows.

BTW I thought Bush's and the Repubs were nothing more than Dem lite and it didn't work so why does Obama expand on Bush's failed efforts?. Look at the deficit and more importantly the interest payments. Think of what we could be doing with that money every time we ALL send a 100B in interest payments alone every month to Japan, China, Middle East, etc... The free ride must end before the hole collapses on top of all of US.


By eskimospy on 2/25/2010 7:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
California's voters are largely responsible for California's 'gross fiscal mismanagement', in particular they are responsible because they were so foolish as to enact Prop 13.

Undercutting a stable revenue stream (property taxes) with Prop 13 meant that the state had to look towards other tax sources for revenue, and so they did it largely through capital gains taxes and sales tax. (that's the largest reason you're paying 9%) Unfortunately those sources are extremely unstable, subject to boom and bust cycles. That's why when the economy went south an enormous hole opened up in California's finances. This will happen to a greater or lesser degree every time we have a significant recession.

Foolish taxpayers enacted a bad proposition... and while Prop 13 passed handily, it was a measure that originated with conservatives. So while you're dishing out scorn for liberals on the state's finances, you might want to attend to that beam in your eye. Conservative anti-tax zeal overwhelmed common sense and rational tax policy. The ideology of fiscal responsibility, indeed.

Liberals then struck back with Prop 98 that basically created a situation where increased state revenues mandated increased education spending, but provided an unusable mechanism to decrease education spending if revenues went down. This has led to a situation were approximately half of California's budget cannot be altered and is ever increasing, leading once again to... a massive budget hole. Also incredibly foolish.

The problem with California is a badly made constitution coupled with an ignorant electorate that enacts bad laws because someone decided to let them play legislator. It has very little to do with 'HURR HURR TAXES ARE TOO HIGH', far more to do with bad tax structure coupled with dumb mandates.

Lastly, we send nowhere even remotely close to $100B a month to foreign countries as interest on the debt. Total interest paid on the national debt was $260 billion in 2009. 75% of US debt is held by American citizens or corporations, so $195 billion of that was paid back to Americans, leaving $65b paid abroad, or approximately $5.5 billion a month. 1/20th of what you said.

If we're going to solve our problems it's important to understand them.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 2:50:54 PM , Rating: 5
"Should have elected that porn star instead of the Governator."

That Governator has been in nonstop fights to reduce the size and scope of California's government.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By rs1 on 2/22/2010 3:52:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Should have elected that porn star instead of the Governator.


What? As per the article, the Governator is the one person that's likely to put a stop to this nonsense.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By walk2k on 2/22/2010 5:09:39 PM , Rating: 1
How by raising taxes??


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By rs1 on 2/22/2010 8:11:58 PM , Rating: 4
By vetoing the bill. Did you even read the article? It says:

quote:
[L]ast year California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill, for fear of such retaliation.

The governor's spokespeople said that the bill would be a "tough sell" for the governor to support after vetoing the similar bill last year.


So he's likely to veto this version of the bill, thereby stopping it at least for another year.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By theapparition on 2/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By ekv on 2/22/2010 1:31:36 PM , Rating: 3
Locally, sales tax is a little over 8%. Not quite 10% but close enough. Btw, sales tax varies by city. Yes, I'm supposed to pay Use Tax.

I work hard. I pay taxes. What are you thinking?!

I'm not a big fan of the Governator (though I voted for him). He has tried to implement reforms and been shot down, basically by Democrats (spending a lot of dough on negative-ad campaigns).

Something like 90% of the CA budget is spent before there is anything Arnold can veto. The reason we (as a country) are in this mess is that somebody is spending too much money on BS.

Why should I have to pay for illegals to get their health care here? I don't even have insurance. And I ain't gonna pay if that turkey of a Health Care Reform bill passes. Go ahead and put me in jail. I dare you. Me an a couple million others. Getting 3 squares a day and free everything. Just have to "buy" protection (for the backside). Go right a-freaking-head.

It's my money. Mine. I earned it. Government is the biggest drag on the economy. Stop spending. Reduce the size of government. What's so hard about that?


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By yomamafor1 on 2/22/2010 1:41:19 PM , Rating: 3
Depends on your location. I'm paying 9.75% on my every local purchase. The tax here is astronomical even compared to the most expensive city in the states, New York (which sits at 8.75%).

So not only I have to pay nearly 10% extra for every food, grocery, and fuel I purchase, I'm going to have to pay 10% extra for electronics, books, and gadgets?


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Chapbass on 2/22/2010 1:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
10.25% here outside of Chicago if i remember correctly. Not EVERYTHING is taxed, but a whole lot of stuff (at that rate at least).

Awesome!


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By ThisSpaceForRent on 2/22/2010 1:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, I think it's 10% with state and Cook county tax, plus whatever the local city sales tax. I think it's 10.5% in Schuampton.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Fracture on 2/22/2010 5:05:38 PM , Rating: 3
Yep - and just try eating at a restaurant.

Here in Cook County, IL, add 2% "eateries tax" to your 10% sales tax. Don't forget to still pay your:
state income tax
property tax
taxes on your utilities
tax on your gasoline
federal income tax

Oh, and have fun paying the tollways to get to all those places (add to that a Cook County tax for using its roads if you're a resident).


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By LordanSS on 2/22/2010 1:54:45 PM , Rating: 5
Here in Brazil, a middle-class citizen, throughout the year, must spend nearly 60% of his income paying taxes of all different kinds. I think we do have one of the highest combined tax rates in the whole world.

Not pretty... =/


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By TSS on 2/23/2010 8:36:38 AM , Rating: 2
Come to holland ^^ Remember when americans where crying when gas was $4 a gallon? it was $11 a gallon at the same time here, 70% of that beeing taxes. that's not counting car insurance and roadtaxes, which will get raised if they ever implement the drive-by-kilometer system.

At the same time, anybody earning above around $60,000 a year is in the highest tax bracket, which is around 50% these days, but that's not counting our VAT. which is 19%.

Oh and when you die, 30% of all your money goes to the government and not your relatives (down from 50% only a few years ago).


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By rs1 on 2/22/2010 4:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot to mention that in addition to the high sales tax, California income tax approaches 10% as well for most people. I got pegged at 9.55% for 2009.

On the plus side, at least state taxes are deductible from federal.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By walk2k on 2/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By ChristopherO on 2/22/2010 2:20:54 PM , Rating: 5
Whoa, settle down here -- tea-bagger is an extremely offensive term in and of itself, and the guy clearly isn't a racist. He just said he doesn't want to pay for benefits for people who shouldn't be here. Heck, I live in CA, have lots of friends of Mexican decent who are here legally, but that doesn't mean I give the illegal ones a pass just because I'm color-blind when it comes to friendship. As far as I can tell, the whole "tea party" movement are a bunch of libertarians anyway, given that they never seem to mention social causes.

Maybe I'm old by Daily Tech terms, but that left-wing phrase, "doing jobs that no one else wants to" is just racist in and of itself. It makes them seem like scavengers, which they're not. Lots of manual labor were college students, people in fast food, the janitor at my grade school was as Caucasian as they come, etc. If the illegals weren't here, they would have to hire locals -- and pay real wages (sure no American citizen wants to work on a produce farm -- for $2/hr). Seriously, I'm not going to complain about paying more for produce, or slightly more for houses, etc, if it meant that legal labor was used for those jobs (guess is 10-30% more for produce for fair wages, most of the cost is distribution anyway). These are not "fair trade" wages these people are getting... The same people who are snooty about "fair trade" coffee seem to love exploiting Mexicans in this country by supporting undocumented workers. Everyone gets up in arms about paying women less for the same job, but if you're Hispanic it's okay? We need to support undocumented immigrants so they can be exploited? It's just wrong.

You want to fix unemployment? Surprise, unemployment would come way down if only documented citizens, or those on work visas, could actually work here. And if the people who employed illegals were forced to pay market-rates, you'd have a whole lot of legal citizens applying for those jobs. There would be no reason to employ the illegals because the risk of having your business shut-down would suddenly seem like an extremely unwise gamble. That 12% unemployment rate in California would come way down. College students might have to do some manual labor again. It would be good for them anyway -- that's what we had to do years ago. It creates something called a "wortk-ethic."


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2010 3:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
ahmen


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 2:52:53 PM , Rating: 5
"As for the rest of your racist rant..."

There's nothing 'racist' about not wanting to pay someone else's bills.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Nfarce on 2/22/2010 3:40:40 PM , Rating: 4
There's nothing inherently racist being against Obama's policies either, but some kook left wing fringe moonbats see that as racism too. What these mindless mouth breathers like walk2k don't understand is that constantly throwing the word "racist" around where it clearly has no bearing does nothing but diminish the real and valid meaning of the term.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By amirite on 2/22/2010 3:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
It is racist when you think that illegals account for the lion share of hospital bills that are not paid.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 3:55:50 PM , Rating: 5
The racist part is equating "illegal aliens" with any specific race.

Illegal aliens are costing California over $10B a year:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturaliz...


By FITCamaro on 2/22/2010 10:32:04 PM , Rating: 4
In California especially, where do the vast majority of illegal immigrants come from? And Mexican is not a race. Hispanic is. But once you go from Mexican to Hispanic, you've got an even bigger proportion of illegal immigrants. So its hardly racist. Sure there's people from other countries here illegally. But they are by far the minority compared to hispanics.

As to the guy who you're replying to, they may not represent the majority of unpaid medical bills, but that doesn't excuse what they do cost us. And it is a sizable amount. But who really knows how much it is in reality.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2010 3:09:24 PM , Rating: 4
Racist? the fact is they don't make enough money to pay for the services they receive from the state. This means the tax payer is subsidizing the labor costs of the companies that hire illegal migrants. Not all taxpayers are thrilled with this subsidy, that doesn't make them racist. Quit throwing out racism to shut down any argument that you see as against your cause.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By FITCamaro on 2/22/2010 3:33:10 PM , Rating: 3
Please point out a single racist statement in his post jack@ss.

And yes Bush raised the debt. So that means Obama in two years needs to exceed how much bush raised it in 8 years? Debt happens in war. But wars are temporary. Social programs never disappear.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Bateluer on 2/22/2010 4:38:01 PM , Rating: 3
Obama surpassed the Bush spending, which I also opposed, months ago. Not counting TARP, which was spent by both administrations, Obama's spending has topped some 10 Trillion dollars. All in 2 years. Google 'National Debt Road Trip.'


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2010 5:54:24 PM , Rating: 3
The TARP has mostly been paid back though with HUGE interest. The federal government has made a ton of money off of it.

The Stimulus ? Yeah, that's never getting paid back lol.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Kurz on 2/22/2010 7:30:59 PM , Rating: 1
Did they really make money?
All I see is more inflation.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2010 7:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it's a documented fact. There is just so much spin coming from the President and the media most of the country still believes the banks stole from them.

And hell yes you still see inflation. We just spend 3 trillion dollars in two years of money we don't have. The TARP loan payback is a drop in the bucket compared to this. Oh and who's idea was it to buy GM ??? Was that Bush too ??

This isn't advanced economics man.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By knutjb on 2/22/2010 8:19:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Oh and who's idea was it to buy GM ??? Was that Bush too ??

No Bush just floated GM 14B? or so which was wrong. Obama bought GM. They should have gone to straight to bankruptcy court WITHOUT the meddling of government. GM had failed, let'em fall. Oh wait gotta save the unions...

As for TARP, you all are paying for that. Got a bank account? Yes? You're footing the bill plus interest through higher fees.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2010 8:31:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As for TARP, you all are paying for that. Got a bank account? Yes? You're footing the bill plus interest through higher fees.


Actually I'm not an idiot and trust my money to a small credit union. Is that ok with you ?


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By knutjb on 2/24/2010 4:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
Even credit unions have collapsed and we all pay into one insurance plan or another regardless of which institution we use. You miss the bigger picture the end consumer pays all taxes or fees when it gets passed on in the price of a product or service.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Tacoloft on 2/23/2010 3:21:56 AM , Rating: 2
Speaking of GM -- how do you like the U.S. Governments vehement attack on Toyota as of late? I think they see a piggy bank in there somewhere... just like the wallets of the American people. EVERY car company has recalls. This is a gross attempt to find money all the while feigning concern for the American people. Honestly - why else would politicians even bother? They have proven not to give a crap about middle/lower class America – of course only in those instances where they can make money off of our plight.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By ekv on 2/22/2010 9:18:27 PM , Rating: 1
"The min. sales tax in CA is now 8.75%"

Sales tax for my area is 8.25%. An extra 0.5% sales tax w/i city limits was voted in 2 yr's ago so the rate is 8.75%. I think the extra rate expires here shortly. Outside city limits, back to 8.25%. See Pub71 on the CA BOE web-site. [I'd give you the link, but ... if you're signed on w/ Michelle's War on Obesity you need to do some work].

Being called a racist ... means a Liberal is losing an argument with a Conservative. Need I say more?


By cmdrdredd on 2/22/2010 11:08:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As for the rest of your racist rant - I love how you tea baggers hue and cry when migrant workers (yes they are here to WORK something you racist rednecks sucking off Welfare should learn about) get some free medicine but sat quietly while Bush and his cronies spent TRILLONS (with a T) of dollars on foreign military operations and drove the economy into such a deep hole it will likely take an entire generation to recover. Go suck an egg.


Yeah I'm a racist redneck because I own guns, carry a gun, and don't believe I should give anyone a free ride. ESPECIALLY not someone who is here illegally. Let me ask you a question. If you rob a bank, that's illegal right? You should go to jail for your illegal act right? How is it that you give a free pass to people who enter the country illegally? It's still illegal, they're called illegal immigrants. They do have a way to enter the country legally and go through the process to get proper documentation etc. Why don't they? It's quite simple. They don't want to pay taxes! They come here to suck money from menial labor jobs and never have to pay taxes like you and I do. Get a clue.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By xprojected on 2/22/2010 2:06:30 PM , Rating: 1
"I"/"my"/"mine". How noble of you. Next time you want to use a public service such as highways, national defense, or educational or unemployment assistance, you're welcome to come up with your own solution. Or hunker down with a militia in Montana.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2010 3:13:41 PM , Rating: 1
Montana is one of the most spectacular states in the country, don't tempt me.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 3:31:22 PM , Rating: 3
" Next time you want to use a public service such as highways, national defense...."

The problem with government budgets isn't "highways or national defense". It's social services, plain and simple. They consume by far the lion's share of the budget of both the Federal government and California.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By walk2k on 2/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2010 5:51:29 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah that's a lie.

That fact that you even read sites so blatantly biased and dishonest is why I can't take you seriously.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By walk2k on 2/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 6:03:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Show me any report, from any sourse, anywhere that shows otherwise.

<crickets>

That's what I thought.
Already done, in the link below.

It seems like at least once a week, some numbskull here confuses discretionary spending with the total federal budget. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've already corrected you a couple times on this. Why not learn from your mistakes, instead of perpetually repeating them?


By chagrinnin on 2/22/2010 6:27:50 PM , Rating: 3
***No crickets were harmed in the posting of this comment***


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By skaaman on 2/22/2010 10:57:50 PM , Rating: 3
Excuse me, I am very liberal but please at least get your facts straight. The 2009 Military spending took up about 23% of the budget. Social security, medicare and other non-discretionary spending account for about 56% of the budget. Currently, about 5% goes to servicing the debt.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2010 9:09:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Excuse me, I am very liberal


Why ?


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By skaaman on 2/23/2010 10:23:42 AM , Rating: 2
Different beliefs/values than yourself...


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Nfarce on 2/23/2010 8:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well your attention to details and the topic(s) tells us all that. No worries. The premise of that mindless tool's argument was "Sorry, but it's a fact, US military spending consumes at least 44% of yearly tax revenue."

Anyone who knows anything about that subject knows that the real figure is based on spending of GDP, which is around 4% or so, very low from a historical perspective. But for the real attention challenged on how much we are spending on the military as a percentage of overall budget, here's a little perspective to keep the mindless bed wetters at bay:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/U.S....

So where the idiot gets a figure of nearly half of US tax dollars (I assume the tool is including corporate taxes there) are going to the military and funding, who knows. Out his a-s-s obviously like so many other of his worthless points. We all know the most kook left wingnuts among us hate the military, hate individualism, hate private ownership, and want us all to turn sovereignty over to the worthless United Nations for security. Yeah that's worked out so well for other nations like Sudan, hasn't it.

Clear enough now?


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By FishTankX on 2/23/2010 3:47:48 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0110.pdf

That is a list of reciepts for the US treasury department. Their budget estimation so far for this year is.. (not listing departments under
Dep. Of Agriculture 142B
Dep. of defense 692B
Dep. Of Education 106B
Dep. Of health and human services 868B
Dep. Of Labor 202B
Interest on federal debt 425B
Dep. of Veterans affairs 124B
Social security 768B

Total on budget= 3.7T

So the DoD's budget is 692B
692B != 44% of 3.7T

The proper figure is actually about 19% for this year.

So yeah. Those crickets can't chirp over the cold hard facts on the FMS (financial management service, a bureau of the department of treasury's) website.

pwnd?


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Solandri on 2/23/2010 4:43:40 AM , Rating: 2
I ran across a liberal claiming that thing about the DoD taking nearly half of the budget some time ago. After showing him some numbers and asking for clarification, I figured out what he was doing. He didn't consider payments made to Social Security and Medicare to be taxes. He considered them to be self-funded entities, and so excluded them from the Federal budget and tax revenue.

I suspect that's what's going on here. Someone thinks up some nonsensical excuse to exclude their pet programs from The Budget, then complains about how other program they don't like consumes too much of The Budget.


By FITCamaro on 2/23/2010 10:25:14 AM , Rating: 2
Well they originally were separate self funded entities. But the Democrats saw all that money just sitting there and couldn't leave it be. So in 1968 they made it part of the general fund. Talking about social security. Would have to look for when Medicare became part of the general fund. Might have been the same year.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 6:01:01 PM , Rating: 5
You have confused discretionary spending (the smallest chunk of the federal budget) with total spending. The vast majority of social spending lies in non-discretionary spending.

In 2010, the total amount of mandatory (non-discretionary) spending for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid ALONE was $1.44 TRILLION dollars. Welfare is another $394 Billion. Even ignoring all the other dozoens of social programs under HUD, Health and Human Services, and other areas, that is $1.8T dollars.

The entire budget for the Department of Defense is $663B. That's ONE THIRD of what we spend on just those three social programs I listed above.

Next time learn about your subject before you attempt to debate it.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/


By semiconshawn on 2/22/2010 8:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
Oh My God Preach On!!!!!!


By FITCamaro on 2/22/2010 10:25:32 PM , Rating: 3
Are you seriously asking a liberal to report facts rather than spin?


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Akrovah on 2/22/2010 6:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
last I checked, those things were all paid for by taxes, which the poster claims to be paying. His issue is that many of the illigal imigrants that are also using the same systems are NOT paying the taxes that fund them.

Way to miss the point.

As for some of the others, to call somebody racist simply because they do not want to pay for the medical bills, education, and food for someone who does not put anything back into the system is just asinine.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Nfarce on 2/22/2010 3:35:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's my money. Mine. I earned it.


That's not the way the collectivist progressives who love big cradle to grave Nanny State government think. To them it is their money not yours, and they have a right to access as much of it as they want to for their entitlement causes.

How dare you have an independent thought away from socialist collectivism you greedy capitalist! /sarc


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By ekv on 2/22/2010 8:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
lol 8)


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By FITCamaro on 2/22/2010 10:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
I remember once getting a spot award at work for $750. When I made a comment on facebook about hating the government for taking over $300 of it in taxes, a liberal friend of mine's attitude was that I should be happy to get a $4x0 bonus. Basically that I should be happy to get what the government leaves for me. As if somehow they earned the money and I am receiving a gift from them for what they didn't want.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Kurz on 2/23/2010 10:01:48 AM , Rating: 2
That liberal friend of yours needs to open his eyes.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By room200 on 2/23/2010 7:48:33 AM , Rating: 1
It's funny how you all scream about how you love capitalism until you need the government. LOL


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/23/2010 11:08:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's funny how you all scream about how you love capitalism until you need the government. LOL
Idiot. Capitalism and government are not mutually exclusive. Capitalism and Socialistic government policies are.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By lamerz4391 on 2/22/2010 1:33:07 PM , Rating: 5
Newsflash for you: we are in the mess we are in because of out of control spending and poor economic policy lead by a bunch of people who care more about votes and contributions than their actual constituents. The article referenced a potential gain of $150 million (probably wildly overestimated by politicians) ... sorry not near enough to cover yearly shortfalls of $20+ billion. Regardless, I pay more than my fair share of taxes for programs that I neither support nor want. The state is run by inept bureaucrats who cannot manage a budget, which has been proven year after year. Nice try, but Amazon use taxes are not the fundamental problem of the state nor the reason we are in the mess we are in. The problem is rooted much more deeply. The legislators in California are the cancer that is killing it.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2010 1:49:28 PM , Rating: 3
The problem was that they obligated California to expenditures matching or exceeding the tax money that was coming in during a boom economy. The idea that the state would always be able to rely on this level of tax revenue was insane. Now we are stuck with state union contracts with better pay, medical, and retirement packages then anyone gets in the civilian sector.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By walk2k on 2/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By lamerz4391 on 2/22/2010 2:10:19 PM , Rating: 5
We had an election? Really? I wasn't aware of that. OK, since there was an election, I guess I should bend over and take it in the ass now. Since there was an election, I guess any and all opposition should stop. Since there was an election, it's cool that the legislators can't balance the budget, place an increasing burden on the people, provide poorly ranked services, and continually issue bonds to pay for things that we cannot afford. Really, double and triple taxation is cool (state income, state sales, federal income), because we had an election. Because there was an election, that makes it all ok.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Nfarce on 2/22/2010 3:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
Stop making so much sense - you are going to make his head explode.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By walk2k on 2/22/10, Rating: -1
By lamerz4391 on 2/22/2010 7:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
Way to miss the point! So because government waste existed before Obama that makes it OK now for him to extend it even further? Holy crap ... the current state of government is unacceptable under ANY administration, Republican or Democrat. I had problems with Bush's level of spending, and the same now with Obama. I won't give either party a pass while they run this country into the ground. GEEZ.

Besides, my post was centered on the current situation California, and the inept and corrupt state legislature which has proven itself time and again to be a complete and utter failure.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Nfarce on 2/22/2010 7:41:30 PM , Rating: 1
Don't you EVER reply to me walk2k, you mindless piece of wingnut trash. You aren't worthy of debating me.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By walk2k on 2/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2010 5:40:33 PM , Rating: 3
The war cost 5 trillion ??

Where are you getting these numbers from


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Abrahmm on 2/22/2010 8:45:26 PM , Rating: 3
With liberals, it's ok to just make stuff up as long as it supports your point.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Nfarce on 2/22/2010 10:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
Or flat out LIE for that matter like that mindless cockroach-lights-on reactionary asshat has shown us time after time after time.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By FITCamaro on 2/22/2010 10:38:20 PM , Rating: 5
Just wait for quadruple taxation. VAT tax. It's coming if the Democrats have anything to say about it.


By FITCamaro on 2/22/2010 10:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
And don't get me started on the bullshit that is the death tax.

And taxing social security. If liberals read their history, FDR promised the income from it would never be taxed. Who changed the income tax rules to tax Social Security? Democrats. It was also supposed to not be a part of the general fund but we know a liberal can't leave money just sitting somewhere without spending it.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By xprojected on 2/22/2010 1:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
And not at all because of the real estate bubble, inflated house prices, and out-of-control bank loan practices? Easy to point fingers at the gubbermint when you assume capitalism can do no wrong.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By lamerz4391 on 2/22/2010 2:17:45 PM , Rating: 1
That is comedy. Nice defense of a bunch of inept fools. Gotta make sure and toe that party line?

Who in the hell assumed capitalism can do no wrong? Certainly not me. The state made long term decisions based on the peak of a bubble that was guaranteed to burst. And now the state is screwed. They assumed the same amount of money would continue to flow in perpetually and committed to a certain level of spending. Bad freaking management.

There was plenty of shady stuff that went on with the real estate bubble, that much is fact. It's not even debatable and I don't know why anyone would. But for you to defend a legislative body with as POOR a record as that in CA, is laughable.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2010 3:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
100% accurate, and I think they knew but were only concerned about their short term political carreers. Rat bastards.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 3:12:26 PM , Rating: 3
"And not at all because of the real estate bubble, inflated house prices, and out-of-control bank loan practices? Easy to point fingers at the gubbermint when you assume capitalism can do no wrong"

Err, all the above ARE problems due to government. The federal government signs law allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (two quasi-government bodies) into the subprime market. They began loaning tens of billions of our taxpayer dollars to people to buy houses they couldn't afford. To add insult to injury, Congress also passes laws requiring private banks to increase loans to low-income families and neighborhoods.

Demand for housing shot way up as a result, and so did prices. But when those people began to default, the bubble collapsed. A textbook example of government interference in the market.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Kurz on 2/22/2010 7:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the artificially low interest rates.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By room200 on 2/22/2010 9:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Part of the problem is that it's really easy to get talking points from various sources without thinking. I point you to the following article that counters your argument of why the subprime mess is not because of "requirements" that banks lend to people who were not qualified. that's simply ridiculous.

The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to which the CRA likewise didn't apply. There's much more. As Barry Ritholtz notes in his fine rant, the CRA didn't force mortgage companies to offer loans for no-money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on subprime debt.

It was the 1980's cliche' that greed is good that got us into this mess.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162789


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 9:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But many of the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA...
Ooops! You've regurgitated material without understanding it. Yes, those banks heavily into the subprime market were not regulated by the CRA. They simply made subprime loans... then turned around and immediately resold them to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In short, those banks didn't care about the risk, because they weren't taking any. They were essentially lending out US taxpayer funds, not their own.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By room200 on 2/23/2010 7:34:49 AM , Rating: 1
Ooops! you skipped the main point that you guys keep spreading this lie about government passing laws to "require" banks to lend to unqualified buyers.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/23/2010 11:07:35 AM , Rating: 2
It's a plain simple fact:

quote:

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers , often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers....

Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.

Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnist...


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By WoWCow on 2/22/2010 1:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In California, amid a post recession tax-revenue stall and a host of expensive social projects ranging from alternative energy grants to health reforms, Californian lawmakers are eying new sources of tax revenue. Among the most tempting targets is Amazon.com, the world's largest online retailer.


Well, I think rather than "Tax and waste" isn't it better to be fiscally responsible for once and NOT spend more than you can pay?

To think those politicians are also responsible for setting the laws regarding banks and American finances...


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By werfu on 2/22/2010 1:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, 10% income tax and % sale tax, I'd be happy to pay only this! In Quebec province, the lower income tax is 25% and the upper income tax is 54%. Sale taxes amount to 13%

However, as much as half of the population don't pay income tax because their wage are too low and and the use of tax credit.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By amirite on 2/22/2010 3:44:25 PM , Rating: 1
LOL! There is also something called a federal tax in the US which eclipses the combined sales and state tax.

I will say that poor Canadians get taxed less than Americans. If you make less than $40k in Canada, you pay what we pay here in the US but you pay for your health care and that is an additional expense for us. I worked for a company that had an office in Canada and US. My counterpart in Canada made the same hourly amount, paid about the same taxes, yet he didn't have to pay for crappy insurance. Instead he got REAL FULL COVERAGE, instead of the pathetic crap we have here in the US.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 4:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
" he got REAL FULL COVERAGE, instead of the pathetic crap we have here in the US. "

And then when he needed any serious medical treatment, he came to the US and paid out of his own pocket, rather than wait 16 months to get treated in Canada.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By 67STANG on 2/22/2010 5:38:48 PM , Rating: 3
No joke. I work with a contractor from Canada and asked him how his health care works there. He said, "You get what you pay for". He said he fractured his foot a few years back and had to wait 7 months to get it looked at. He said a lot of the doctors there moved to the U.S. because they can still make a decent living here.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By amirite on 2/22/2010 9:16:31 PM , Rating: 1
Nice story bro!

I bet if he came down here and they saw no insurance he wouldn't get treated. Apparently it wasn't an emergency. Who knows? You can call him and ask him to clarify? I'll like to hear to from the horse's mouth myself.

I also worked with coworkers that live in Canada. They told me they have no issues. Not only did they pay for their health care through their taxes, they paid THE SAME TAXES AS I DID. Now, it was a job that made under $50k but that shows to me that Canadians take care of themselves better than we do. They did, though, actualy seem to always make it a point to ask me why we are so fat in the US (we have pictures on a shared drive of the employees that they can access.)

Anyways, I'll take surveys over what someone said. Here is another one I found, first link from my first search. This is old news to me, but apparently new to most people here. MOST AMERICANS THINK OUR HEALTH CARE SUCKS. Lot less Canadians, French, heck just about any other modern country ranks their health care higher than we do. Oh, and this is from the horses @ss (FOX).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By room200 on 2/23/2010 7:38:52 AM , Rating: 2
I once worked with a guy who kew a lady, who was friends with another guy who said the insurance in Canada is excellent. See, anyone can do what you just did.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By amirite on 2/22/2010 9:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
Wait times for treatments in Canada are about the same in the US. Another nugget you gobbled up from the insurance machine's propoganda.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 9:07:36 PM , Rating: 3
"Wait times for treatments in Canada are about the same in the US"

You shouldn't make such nonsense statements:

quote:
In 2006, the average amount of time spent waiting to receive treatment after referral by a general practitioner averaged 17.8 weeks across Canada. At 14.9 weeks, Ontario had the shortest waits. Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick had average waits of 25.8 weeks, 28.5 weeks, and 31.9 weeks, respectively.

Patients referred to a neurosurgeon waited an average of 21 weeks just to see a specialist. Getting treatment required an additional 10.7 weeks.

Patients waited an average of 16.2 weeks to see an orthopedic surgeon, and another 24.2 weeks for treatment to be performed after the initial visit.

The number of people routinely waiting for services is staggering, according to the report. In 2003, the most recent year for which data were available from Statistics Canada, approximately 1.1 million people had trouble accessing care on a timely basis.

About 201,000 had problems obtaining non-emergency services. An additional 607,000 had problems getting in to see a specialist, and about 301,000 patients experienced problems obtaining diagnostic procedures.
http://healthcare.ncpa.org/commentaries/canadians-...

32 weeks to get care from a specialist !!!

In my entire life, I have never waited more than one week to see a doctor. Quite often, I've called and gotten an appointment for the very next day.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 9:10:57 PM , Rating: 3
Another bit, this one from CNN:

quote:
"They said to me that you had a brain tumor and it was pressing on your optic chasm and that it needed to come out immediately," Holmes said.

Holmes is Canadian, but the "they" she refers to are doctors at the Mayo Clinic in the United States, where she turned after specialists in her own government-run health care system would not see her fast enough.

"My family doctor at that time tried to get me in to see an endocrinologist and a neurologist," Holmes recalled. "It was going to be four months for one specialist and six months for the other."

Even with the warning from U.S. doctors in hand, Holmes said she still couldn't get in to see Canadian specialists. Because the government system is the only health care option for Canadians, she says she had no choice but to have the surgery in the U.S.

Her treatment at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona cost $100,000, and she and her husband put a second mortgage on their home and borrowed from family and friends to pay for it.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/canadian.he...


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 9:25:33 PM , Rating: 3
Some more on Canada's wait times:

quote:
A four-year-old Newfoundland boy who has already lost one kidney to cancer is facing a staggering 2 and a half year wait for a scan on the province's only magnetic-resonance-imaging machine. The scan was requested by a geneticist who suspects Ryan Oldford, a rambunctious, blue-eyed blond, has a rare syndrome that puts him at higher risk for leukemia and cancers of the kidney and liver, according to his mother, Brenda Oldford...
http://brothersjuddblog.com/archives/2005/01/high_...


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 9:31:33 PM , Rating: 3
More on Canada's wait times:

quote:
Shetty has come to India for a partial hip replacement surgery. He was told he would have to wait up to 2½ years for the operation if he stayed in Calgary [Canada] where he's lived for the last 20 years.

There was no waiting list at the Apollo Hospital in Chennai where he's decided to have the surgery. When Shetty moved from India to North America 36 years ago he never imagined he'd be coming back for medical treatment....

Shetty was happy to have the operation over with but he says he hopes Ottawa can do something to clear up the long waiting lists so that other Canadians won't have to choose between living in pain and travelling to faraway places for surgery.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_copeland/20040...


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 9:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
Some more:

quote:
3/1/2008: More than 400 Canadians in the full throes of a heart attack or other cardiac emergency have been sent to the United States because no hospital can provide the lifesaving care they require here in Ontario....
http://www.drgov.com/?p=148


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 9:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
Some more on California wait times:

quote:
SURGERY POSTPONED INDEFINITELY FOR 1,000 PATIENTS.

More than 1,000 orthopedic, gynecological and general surgery patients in Kelowna [Canada] have been left wondering when their operations will take place because Interior Health has ended its contract with the private operating facility that was to do the procedures....

Dr. O'Farrell estimated that around 1,200 orthopedic patients could be forced to wait a year or more for the new private surgery centre to open.

He is concerned about Kelowna General's ability to cope with the added patients.

"The operating room facilities probably haven't changed since the 1970s, and the population of the Okanagan has exploded and we just can't accommodate all the patients that need surgery....
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/cans...


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 9:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
Some more on wait times in Canada:

quote:
CBC NEWS: Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report

Compared to 1993, wait times in 2007 are 97 per cent longer, report finds. The average wait time for a Canadian awaiting surgery or other medical treatment is now 18.3 weeks, a new high...


http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/fraser-r...


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By room200 on 2/23/2010 7:46:45 AM , Rating: 1
Many more Americans have a wait time; they are waiting to die simply because they have NO health insurance. Many Americans have a different wait time; they're simply waiting until insurance companies increase premiums to a level so high that their place of employment revokes their coverage. There's another kind of wait time; how long will you wait until you go bankrupt when the insurance company tells you they won't cover you for a catastrophic illness because of some minor, unrelated, preexisting condition?


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/23/2010 11:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
"...when the insurance company tells you they won't cover you for a catastrophic illness because of some minor, unrelated, preexisting condition?"

Please stop spreading disinformation. This is an outright lie. Do you really think it helps to build your case to falsify facts like this?


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By ekv on 2/24/2010 3:32:53 AM , Rating: 3
Excuse me bub, but I have no health insurance. I've been quite blessed with good health. Perhaps it is my belief system, perhaps it is prayer, or the vitamins, or the realization that I must take care of myself because I can't rely on the government. Ok, small correction, I can rely on the government ... to try to tax me into bankruptcy!

I am not waiting to die.

Your last example is textbook Liberalism. You pick some arbitrary contrived situation that supports your viewpoint and try to morph it into whatever you can get away with.


By FITCamaro on 2/22/2010 10:44:30 PM , Rating: 3
Pretty much half the population here in the US doesn't pay taxes either. And many of those who don't get paid by the government via Welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, housing subsidies, etc. Yet those of us who worked hard growing up to get a good job and are able to make it on our own are greedy because we don't want to pay any more taxes.

I hear commercials for the Earned Income Tax credit. Says you can get up to $5600. Most of the people getting that much likely didn't even pay $5600 in taxes. And that's just one credit.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2010 1:18:47 PM , Rating: 3
I often buy from amazon instead of newegg for exactly this reason. CA is getting crazy, they spend all their time thinking of new ways to get in our pockets. You hear they are trying to pass a proposition so they only need 51% majority to raise taxes. We don't need anymore taxes period, we are already the highest taxed state in the country. Its time cut off the supply of money to the CA legislature and force them to make cuts.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 2:57:09 PM , Rating: 1
"This is what happens when Democrats have unchecked power. Look what's happening on a national scale at the moment... "

We seem perpetually unable to learn from history. However, nationally we might not have Obama in office spending money hand over fist...had Bush not spent 8 years spending money hand over fist.

Obama is currently generating deficits larger than all other presidents before him...combined. We're going to pay for that the rest of our lives. But when the pot is black, calling out the kettle is a bit difficut.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2010 4:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We seem perpetually unable to learn from history. However, nationally we might not have Obama in office spending money hand over fist...had Bush not spent 8 years spending money hand over fist.


Bush was the very definition of a moderate. Something Democrats claim they want Republicans to be, and yet when they get a Republican president to go along with their crap, hate him for it and blame him for everything.

I find your assertion that somehow Obama wouldn't be a start raving socialist if it were not for Bush to be highly idiotic. Obama isn't doing any of this because he HAS to, he's doing this because he wants to. Did you read his book ? I did. His vision for America is clearly laid out, and this is exactly his roadmap for it.

quote:
But when the pot is black, calling out the kettle is a bit difficut.


I'm a Conservative. Not a Republican. My conscious is clear, sir. There is no pot calling kettle black here.

And for fuk's sake. Can we have ONE discussion here without bringing up Bush ? What in the HELL does California spending itself to death have to do with George Bush ? California was screwed up before Bush even smelled the White House.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 4:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
"I find your assertion that somehow Obama wouldn't be a start raving socialist if it were not for Bush to be highly idiotic"

You didn't read my post. I said we likely would not have had Obama in office, had Bush been a fiscal conservative.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Kurz on 2/22/2010 7:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
Ironic what is happening isn't it?


By FITCamaro on 2/22/2010 10:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
I've thought about reading his book, but I can't bring myself to pay him money for that piece of filth. And I don't make it to the library much. I wonder if I can torrent the text.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By swampthing1117 on 2/22/2010 1:52:37 PM , Rating: 1
tell that to all the brick and mortar stores that can't compete with amazon due to having more overhead and not being able to match their pricing as they aren't buying in volume.

Or tell it to all the police officers and schools that lose out on local tax revenue due to people not shopping in their own locality.

While getting a "10% discount" as you put it due to not paying taxes maybe be "good" for the consumer at first glance, it really isn't. When localities don't make tax revenue on local businesses where do you think they make up those budget deficits? They raise property taxes among other things.

I'm sorry but i support them taxing amazon. There is no reason they should be allowed to sell their goods tax free and have that type of advantage over every other retailer in the country. It's not a fair playing field and they are not meeting their civic duty.


By lamerz4391 on 2/22/2010 2:28:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, so maybe if the state and local governments weren't so hostile to business they'd be still here. My former employer moved most of the workforce out of the state in the last decade because the costs for employing people in CA were so staggeringly high.

As far as local tax revenue ... perhaps if the sales tax were lowered local businesses might see an increase in revenue due to a lower total cost of purchase and be able to employ more people, who would thus pay more income tax to the state. But that would lead to less people relying directly on government social programs ... we can't have that!


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2010 4:09:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
tell that to all the brick and mortar stores that can't compete with amazon due to having more overhead and not being able to match their pricing as they aren't buying in volume.


Something out there called the Internet. Maybe you have heard of it ???

quote:
Or tell it to all the police officers and schools that lose out on local tax revenue due to people not shopping in their own locality.


Oh that old line. Do you actually believe budgets are so tight, the ONLY thing we can possibly cut is fireman, cops and teachers ?? That's the oldest trick in the Democrat book to get people to be against tax cuts. " If we cut taxes you will be less safe and your children less educated !!! "

Please, there is such MASSIVE waste, such massive corruption, such massive overhead in California's state government. You cannot sit here and tell me with a straight face that it costs THAT much money to run a state.

quote:
I'm sorry but i support them taxing amazon. There is no reason they should be allowed to sell their goods tax free and have that type of advantage over every other retailer in the country. It's not a fair playing field and they are not meeting their civic duty.


Amazon is competing with other ONLINE retailers. Why should they give a goddamn about your local brick and mortar store ? Who said they were directly competing with them in the first place ? Civic duty !? What a bunch of anti capitalists liberal tripe. I spit on you.

Taxing internet sales hurts everyone. End of story. You are a moron.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Masospaghetti on 2/22/2010 4:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think the point was that Amazon should not have a tax-free advantage over other retailers - NOT that California needs more tax revenue. Its pretty obvious that California needs to cut spending.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2010 4:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the point was that Amazon should not have a tax-free advantage over other retailers - NOT that California needs more tax revenue. Its pretty obvious that California needs to cut spending.


Are they breaking a law ? Yes or no.


By whiskerwill on 2/22/2010 5:02:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"I think the point was that Amazon should not have a tax-free advantage over other retailers "

The sales tax advantage seems roughly compensated for by the shipping cost disadvantage.

In any case, when sales taxes get so high that they become a "competitive disadvantage", I think its time to lower the tax.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Hieyeck on 2/22/2010 2:20:42 PM , Rating: 1
Coincidentally, CA is also an abbreviation for Canada... Must be a curse for high taxes. At least we get healthcare up here...


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Captain Orgazmo on 2/22/2010 2:45:57 PM , Rating: 3
Correction: we get healthcare *with the longest wait times and highest cost per capita in the developed world* up here. And among the highest taxes. However, we have among the lowest corporate taxes, which allow businesses to compete and succeed, and people to be employed, unlike in Obama' new workers' paradise.


RE: California: The Rotting Corpse
By Hieyeck on 2/22/2010 3:21:36 PM , Rating: 1
Debateable, it's mostly Toronto driving the averages for the worse. But Toronto is the physical incarnation of mediocrity. We have some of the best hospitals in the world, but not enough of them. We have free healthcare, with small 'handling' fees. We have a great and easy-to-use transit system, that's run and operated by overpaid retards. Best of all, we try to run our budget like a great city, but failhard with the population density of towns.


By Captain Orgazmo on 2/22/2010 9:56:51 PM , Rating: 3
I think every province is more or less the same as far as delivery (except Quebec, who gets about $10 billion a year in "equalization" payments, mostly from Alberta). Cost wise, Alberta is by far the worst in the country, with $15 billion budgeted for 2010 health care spending (for a population of 3 million). Free, eh? It's only free if you don't work and pay taxes.


By cmdrdredd on 2/22/2010 11:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair you guys did vote in your own officials. If they screwed you then you (a general you) didn't do enough research on their stance on many issues.


By inperfectdarkness on 2/23/2010 11:27:24 AM , Rating: 2
i vote we sell california to china in exchange for them excusing our debt. hell, it's already practically communist anyways. china should PAY us for spreading their circle of influence to the lower 48.


Reminds me of Ohio Use Tax
By jonmcc33 on 2/22/2010 12:06:11 PM , Rating: 1
Ohio already has this, they call it "Ohio Use Tax".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax

It's just another way to screw the hard working American really.




RE: Reminds me of Ohio Use Tax
By theapparition on 2/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: Reminds me of Ohio Use Tax
By Suntan on 2/22/2010 1:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Use tax, while most may not like the idea, is actually a quite equitable way to distribute burden. Only pay if buy. The more you buy, the more tax you are required to pay.


I like the idea, I just shutter to think of the complexity that would come out of it if Congress did incorporate it. If you think they would just set it up as a straight percentage of money spent and let each person pay as they go, you're nuts.

-Suntan


RE: Reminds me of Ohio Use Tax
By theapparition on 2/22/2010 1:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'm with you. Knowing our congress, it would be like:
10% tax, 8% for seniors, 6% if disabled or blind, 4% if disabled and blind, 2% if you voted democrat in the last election, and you get 25% back if you're on welfare.

Checking out? Please fill out form 1337-PURCH and itemize your purchases. Please include a copy of your drivers license, SSN, W2, 1099 and be sure to include the subtotal on line 14. If line 15 after allowances is greater than line 14, Stop-record 0 on line 72, otherwise subtract line 15 from line 14 and consult sales tax tables. Next we'll try to deduct farm credits and........


RE: Reminds me of Ohio Use Tax
By walk2k on 2/22/2010 1:44:37 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, everyone pays the same rate.

http://tinyurl.com/yhg9rb4


By Masospaghetti on 2/22/2010 4:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
As soon as you give politicians the power to change tax rates for different demographics, its inevitable that they will.

It's such a powerful political tool that they can't resist. Think about it - It sounds great to all of the senior voters that "I reduced the tax rate for all of our deserving seniors by 5%!" - not mentioning that the other demographics will pick up the slack.

This type of power needs to be taken away from politicians entirely. Its also why its going to be next to impossible for the fairtax (national sales tax) to pass - it abolishes the current tax code, and no longer allows politicians to buy votes by reducing tax rates in sneaky ways that pamper one person and punish another, for no good reason.


RE: Reminds me of Ohio Use Tax
By ekv on 2/22/2010 11:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
FairTax is better.

Earn as much as you want. It's yours. Keep it. When you buy then you pay tax. Side effects are increased saving and investment (no tax on your investment earnings), and increased tax compliance. Don't have to hire a CPA to do your taxes [though you may need them to figure out what to do with the extra dough].

FairTax coupled with spending limits on gov't. Without spending limits nothing will work. Nothing.


RE: Reminds me of Ohio Use Tax
By FishTankX on 2/23/2010 3:51:04 AM , Rating: 2
This will completely torpedo tax income, as over 50% of the taxes come from the richest 5%. Those 5% don't spend anywhere near 50% of the money flowing around America. It just sits and accumulates.

If you want a MASSIVE sales tax, then go ahead. But I have the feeling it would have to be close to 80% to keep up the pace, and massivley punish the middle class.

The simple fact is that the BRUNT of taxes is borne by people making over $250k a year, and they're the ones who can afford to pay it. To suddenly take their taxes away, you'll have to step up the taxes everywhere, on everyone who CAN't afford to pay it.


RE: Reminds me of Ohio Use Tax
By FishTankX on 2/23/2010 4:11:24 AM , Rating: 2
By the way, here is my source.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

According to this, the richest .1% of Americans bore 20% of income tax load of the country, the richest 1% bore 40%, the richest 5% bore 60%.

So if you did away with income tax, you'd have to find a way to make it up.

With some quick extrapolation from my original source, and http://sourcebook.governing.com/topicresults.jsp?s... this source, total sales tax accounts for 400 billion dollars in revenue. To make up for the 1.2 trillion dollars in income tax that would be lost, you would need to quadruple sales taxes. Ontop of this, everyone tightening their belts like crazy to avoid the absurd sales tax would severely damage businesses, requiring lost federal income from business taxes to be made up by more sales taxes. I could easily see sales taxes quintuple. Thus, you would probably have a 50% sales tax in California, in addition to general income going down because non essential goods makers would be pummeled into the ground.

This seems like a very, very bad idea from my viewpoint.


RE: Reminds me of Ohio Use Tax
By porkpie on 2/23/2010 2:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
"the richest .1% of Americans bore 20% of income tax load of the country, the richest 1% bore 40%, the richest 5% bore 60%."

Doesn't sound very fair to them, does it.

Person A pays $10M in taxes, and uses no social services...Person B pays nothing in taxes, and uses $20K in social services.

What sort of unjust insanity is that?


RE: Reminds me of Ohio Use Tax
By jonmcc33 on 2/22/2010 4:42:01 PM , Rating: 1
But that's the sole incentive to purchase online, to avoid paying any sales tax. If there is no incentive like that then why shop online? You have to pay for shipping in most cases anyway. Add sales tax on top and there will be no reason to shop online, which will kill online sales.

Honestly, I pay my federal, state, city, FICA and Medicare. I pay sales tax on everything I buy in state. It's not like nobody is getting a wad of my money. The idea is to stimulate spending to boost the economy and not give people reasons not to spend their money.


RE: Reminds me of Ohio Use Tax
By Suntan on 2/22/2010 12:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's just another way to screw the hard working American really.


Not really, as the “American” has always been expected to pay this tax, it isn’t a new tax.

If a person wants to bellyache about sales taxes in general, that’s fine, but this isn’t a “new tax” being levied on the “American.” This is an existing tax that the government has just been too complacent to enforce.

The issue here is that they are trying to make companies like Amazon out to be the bad guy. Like it is there fault for this occurring. Further, they are trying to burden Amazon and co. with collecting the taxes because it would be very difficult to collect it the proper way (making individuals be honest on their year end tax documents.)

If a person wants to be mad at their governing toads, be mad that they are pussyfooting around the issues, trying to make it look like Amazon is intentionally gaming the system, instead of coming forward and being forthright with tax collection (and dealing with the ire that it will bring down on them from their constituents.)

-Suntan


RE: Reminds me of Ohio Use Tax
By jonmcc33 on 2/22/2010 4:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
I've been buying online for over a decade and never "expected" to pay anything but shipping & handling. Lack of having to pay a sales tax is what boosted the sales of online e-tailers like NewEgg and Amazon. Forcing them to tax everything will do nothing but hurt business and the economy.

I actually worked for a company that does DVD/CD distribution for Amazon and I can vouch that their sales were hit hard during the recession the past 2 years. They were forced to lay off hundreds of employees because of it. Hurting online sales by needless taxing will only hurt these online companies even more and in the long run cost more jobs.

But it's okay as long as the government gets their money, right? Who cares about the hard working American? Let's just give our tax dollars to rich banks and car companies instead!


RE: Reminds me of Ohio Use Tax
By theapparition on 2/23/2010 8:16:28 AM , Rating: 2
Stop the rant, step back and take a breath. Now look at this objectively.

Whether you "expected" to pay tax or not doesn't change the fact. You are required to pay that tax . Right now, you are committing a crime. That's right, committing tax fraud by not paying tax on your untaxed purchases. Even most states without income tax have a mechanism to pay use tax.

As I've said here many times, this is not a new tax. Get that? They are not taking anything other than what they should be owed. The only thing that's changing is that the government wants to remove the burden from consumers (who even don't know they have to pay, or intentionally defraud the system) to the vendors, just like you currently pay at a cash register.


RE: Reminds me of Ohio Use Tax
By jonmcc33 on 2/23/2010 9:08:13 AM , Rating: 2
Objectively I pay for shipping.

It's not a "new" tax this year but, for Ohio, it was introduced in 2000. It hasn't always been there as you are claiming.
http://tax.ohio.gov/divisions/communications/news_...

Actually, unless it can be tracked and reported there is nothing being violated. How can Ohio prove that I purchased anything online? Hence, no tax fraud. Never heard of "innocent until proven guilty" before?

Bottom line, in case you don't understand, if states start charging for online purchases then online sales will suffer. That WILL hurt the economy. That will also effect shipping carriers like USPS, UPS and FedEx. They will lose significant revenue in shipping. You think that's ranting, you aren't seeing the bigger picture. There are MANY people that make a living off of online sales. You cut into that and you make those families suffer, not me.

You are all up for this happening in spite of supporting what you think the state is owed, eh? The state makes plenty with local sales tax, state tax and city tax. Home owners can add on property tax.


By theapparition on 2/23/2010 1:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Objectively I pay for shipping.

Yes, and you should pay for shipping and tax, just as if the retailer was in your state.

quote:
It's not a "new" tax this year but, for Ohio, it was introduced in 2000. It hasn't always been there as you are claiming.

It was added as a line on the income tax for the state of Ohio in 2000. Many states (I'm not claiming all) have had other mechanisms for collecting this tax before it was added to the state income tax return. It was always done on the honor method.

quote:
Actually, unless it can be tracked and reported there is nothing being violated. How can Ohio prove that I purchased anything online? Hence, no tax fraud. Never heard of "innocent until proven guilty" before?

Are you serious??? Just because you haven't been caught means that no crime was committed? Hope you never get audited, since filling in -0- on that use tax line is your legal submission.
Granted it is a low profile and rarely severely prosecuted crime, but don't think you're not a criminal because you haven't been caught, yet.
Someone posted above that California already notified thier company that they must send records of purchases shipped to thier state. Do you think for a moment that Ohio hasn't done this?

quote:
Bottom line, in case you don't understand, if states start charging for online purchases then online sales will suffer.

And local purchases will go up. Reminds me of the stupid "Boycot Gas Wednesday". Yes, retail sales of gas on Wed will suffer, but Tue and Thurs will have record sales.

quote:
That will also effect shipping carriers like USPS, UPS and FedEx. They will lose significant revenue in shipping.

I think online sales will still thrive since some large retailers will still deal with volumes and pricing that no local retailer can match. However, for the other items where local retailers become more competitive, guess what? You think they get thier deliveries from the tooth fairy? Nope, they'll still come from USPS, UPS and Fedex. Shipping won't be affected in the least.

quote:
There are MANY people that make a living off of online sales. You cut into that and you make those families suffer, not me.

And what of local sales put at a disadvantage due to sales tax. Now they are suffering. All I'm advocating, and have always advocated, is a fair playing field. You seem to think that one group should be given an advantage.

quote:
You are all up for this happening in spite of supporting what you think the state is owed, eh?

As I said before, I think the burden should be equitable. You only see the small picture, how it affects your pocket, not the big picture. If you buy something, than you need to pay tax on it, same as everyone else.

quote:
The state makes plenty with local sales tax, state tax and city tax. Home owners can add on property tax.

I'm firmly for lower taxes, less waste and signifigantly less socialized programs. I'm not going to go off on how mismanaged most states are, or that half of our citizens are a complete drain on our economy, rather than supporing it. Don't misunderstand me, I think most taxes are unfair in thier current state, I just don't think it's fair that online retailers and thier buyers are skirting the law and putting local businesses at a disadvantage due to it.


Honesty
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2010 12:10:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
In California, amid a post recession tax-revenue stall and a host of expensive social projects ranging from alternative energy grants to health reforms, Californian lawmakers are eying new sources of tax revenue. Among the most tempting targets is Amazon.com, the world's largest online retailer.


Jason I rip you a lot for being a biased Liberal, but I give credit where credit is due. I was pleased to see you honestly state the reason for California's poor financial state. Government spending and Democrats.




RE: Honesty
By corduroygt on 2/22/2010 12:34:07 PM , Rating: 4
He forgot a big one, providing social and health services to illegals.


RE: Honesty
By skaaman on 2/22/2010 12:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh... CA already has a use tax in place.

http://finance.caltech.edu/tax_salestax.htm

Last year we (in IL) were audited by the state of CA for consumer IT sales processed in 06 and 07. Net result was having to send letters to all CA purchasers in that time frame notifying them of the Use Tax due in accordance to CA law.

As with Amazon and hundreds of others we have no presence in the state.



RE: Honesty
By stromgald30 on 2/22/2010 12:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I just did my CA taxes and had to include paying the Use tax for stuff I bought online. Makes me wish I was back in Texas.

I guess people haven't been doing their taxes properly, or the government officials don't realize there's something already in place for this. Either one wouldn't be too surprising to me.

http://www.ftb.ca.gov/current/usetax.shtml


RE: Honesty
By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2010 1:42:07 PM , Rating: 3
I always get a big chuckle when I'm filling out my taxes and I come to that question.


RE: Honesty
By MadMan007 on 2/23/2010 9:25:22 AM , Rating: 2
Chances are good that Texas has a use tax too smart guy.


Hypocrisy and Ignorance, So Sad
By nvmarino on 2/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: Hypocrisy and Ignorance, So Sad
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 4:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
"Not collecting this tax hurts in-state business.."

Collecting this tax hurts in-state businesses that do online sales out of state. California very likely has more of those than any other state...which means their attempts to crack down here will, if followed by other states, wind up hurting California more than noncollection does.

"IF YOU'RE NOT PAYING TAX ON OUT OF STATE PURCHASES YOU ARE DRAINING OUR TAX SYSTEM JUST LIKE ALL THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS"

No. You don't "drain" a system by failing to pay. You drain it by failing to pay COUPLED with using large amounts of expensive social services.

A California resident who is paying his own expenses isn't draining the system...whether or not he pays sales tax on his TV.

" I'd be willing to bet plenty of the folks bitching here are the same type of scumbug leaches"

It's "leeches". And while your statement is a wonderful example of an ad hominem attack, its hardly relevant to the discussion.


RE: Hypocrisy and Ignorance, So Sad
By nvmarino on 2/22/2010 6:46:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Collecting this tax hurts in-state businesses that do online sales out of state. California very likely has more of those than any other state...which means their attempts to crack down here will, if followed by other states, wind up hurting California more than noncollection does.


WHAT? If other states choose to follow the impact is only that residents of that state will now have to pay their local sales tax rate on items they order from an out of state company. So, if I live in a state where my local sales tax is 5%, I pay the same 5% when I shop for a product online from an out of state vendor or the store down the street. The result is both businesses are now on a level playing field. The way it is today the only "advantage" of a business in CA selling out of state is over a business in the state where the consumer is purchasing. It does not give CA businesses an advantage over any other business except those in the home state of the consumer. The only way this hurts local business is if it somehow causes a mess exodus of people who want to pay cheaper sales tax and decide to move to Delaware. Somehow I don't see that happening.

quote:
No. You don't "drain" a system by failing to pay. You drain it by failing to pay COUPLED with using large amounts of expensive social services.

A California resident who is paying his own expenses isn't draining the system...whether or not he pays sales tax on his TV.


If you're not paying sales tax on your TV you are not paying your expenses and you are breaking the law as it stands today. Draining a system can be just as effective with many small leeches as it can with a few large ones. Especially if the large ones are mostly made up in ones head.

quote:
It's "leeches". And while your statement is a wonderful example of an ad hominem attack, its hardly relevant to the discussion.


Thanks for the spelling correction - unfortunately there's no way to edit posts or I would've corrected it immediately after I hit the post button. While you were right on that one, unfortunately, there is nothing ad hominem about my statement. I am not saying people are wrong because they are leeching scumbags. I'm saying they are hypocrits. The ones who are wrong are the ones who keep saying this is some kind of new tax. It is not. Consumers were always supposed to be paying sales tax on these purchases. The problem is that, with the way things are structured today, it's next to impossible to enforce.


RE: Hypocrisy and Ignorance, So Sad
By porkpie on 2/22/2010 8:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
WHAT? If other states choose to follow the impact is only that residents of that state will now have to pay their local sales tax rate on items they order from an out of state company
Try to think clearly. If we assume that your initial premise was correct (that in-state businesses are hurt by online businesses underpricing them due to the lack of sales tax) then California instituting this law will impel more Californians to purchase in state. Follow that so far?

Now, other states follow suit. THEIR residents shift a portion of their online sales back in-state as well, meaning online business in CALIFORNIA see their sales decline. Still with me?

Thus California (which has more online businesses than any other state) sees a net LOSS in total GDP, and ultimately a loss in tax revenues as well. It's really not that hard to follow.

quote:
. Draining a system can be just as effective with many small leeches as it can with a few large ones
You still miss the point. If you don't take anything OUT of a system, you can't drain it..no matter how much or little you put into it. If you're a California resident not sucking greedily off the government teat, you're not draining the system...whether or not you paid taxes on your last Amazon purchase.


RE: Hypocrisy and Ignorance, So Sad
By nvmarino on 2/23/2010 2:58:41 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Try to think clearly. If we assume that your initial premise was correct (that in-state businesses are hurt by online businesses underpricing them due to the lack of sales tax) then California instituting this law will impel more Californians to purchase in state. Follow that so far?

Yes, I believe more people in CA would makes purchases from online stores in their own state (assuming those stores were price and service competitive) if this law were enacted. So far so good.

quote:
Now, other states follow suit. THEIR residents shift a portion of their online sales back in-state as well, meaning online business in CALIFORNIA see their sales decline. Still with me?

Nope, now you're losing me. Considering, according to your own claims, California has more online businesses than any other state, where are all these non-Californian people going to start making their online purchases? For the few folks who have a good option to purchase from an online store in state, yes they might start ordering more in their own state. But the vast majority of people will continue shopping from the same online stores they've always been buying from. You know, the ones that are mostly in CA. In the end it's a wash at worst. That's assuming those stores continue to provide the best combination of price and service.
quote:
Thus California (which has more online businesses than any other state) sees a net LOSS in total GDP, and ultimately a loss in tax revenues as well. It's really not that hard to follow.

Now you've really lost me. If CA residents are currently paying zero (or close to it) on the online purchases they make out of state and, if this law is enacted, CA will be getting the proper sales tax that those consumers should already be paying, how exactly does that result in a loss of tax revenues?
quote:
You still miss the point. If you don't take anything OUT of a system, you can't drain it..no matter how much or little you put into it.

You're not honestly claiming that you or anyone else who lives in CA or any other state for that matter doesn't take ANYTHING out of the system are you?
quote:
If you're a California resident not sucking greedily off the government teat, you're not draining the system...whether or not you paid taxes on your last Amazon purchase.

Like it or not we are all sucking off the government teat, draining the system. If you are not paying taxes on the things you are supposed to be then you're not putting what you're supposed to be back in the teat so we can all keep sucking. That includes the taxes on your last Amazon purchase. If you complain about how others are draining the system and yet continue to insist you are doing nothing wrong by not paying those taxes you are a hypocrite. If you're not paying those taxes, bitching about immigrants draining the system, and are collecting unemployment while making no effort to get a job or a welfare check while making no effort to get off welfare you are a scumbag hypocrite.


RE: Hypocrisy and Ignorance, So Sad
By porkpie on 2/23/2010 11:13:36 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Like it or not we are all sucking off the government teat, draining the system
I'm not receiving welfare, free medical care, unemployment, or any of the other entitlement programs that now make up 4/5 of state and federal budgets. Yet I pay more than $30K in taxes each year. Currently, half the people in the country pay no income tax whatsoever.

Yet you claim they aren't leeching, because they paid $60 sales tax on their TV, while consumping $20K worth of free services each year...but I am, because I bought it online?

Are you TRYING to embarrass yourself? Or did it just happen on its own?


By nvmarino on 2/23/2010 12:43:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm not receiving welfare, free medical care, unemployment, or any of the other entitlement programs that now make up 4/5 of state and federal budgets. Yet I pay more than $30K in taxes each year. Currently, half the people in the country pay no income tax whatsoever.

I paid more than you in taxes last year. And I probably didn't use any more government provided services than you did last year. Hell, I even had to sit on a jury for over two weeks last year, contributing even more to the system. Does that mean that I should be able to just walk in to a store and claim I'm not paying sales tax because I already paid XXX in taxes this year and porkpie paid less? I don't care how much you pay in taxes or how much other people pay. That has exactly zero to do with the fact that you are SUPPOSED TO BE PAYING TAXES ON ONLINE PURCHASES TODAY. If you live in CA you were supposed to be paying taxes on those purchases since 1935. If you are not paying THOSE TAXES you are not paying EVERYTHING YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. That you are already paying 30K a year is irrelevant. You don't get to pick which sales tax you pay and which you don't because you already pay 30K. If you are not paying it then you are a criminal commiting tax fraud and have no right to bitch about other people who are also not contributing to the system what they should be.
quote:
Yet you claim they aren't leeching, because they paid $60 sales tax on their TV, while consumping $20K worth of free services each year...but I am, because I bought it online?

Now you're just making stuff up. Where exactly did I claim people who are collecting welfare and pay the $60 sales tax on their Amazon purchase were not draining the system? Oh that's right, I said no such thing. What I said was that the people who are on welfare, making no attempt to get off, and ALSO bitching about this tax are the worst offenders. I also said that, in my own personal experience, the ones I typically hear bitching the most about things like this are THE ONES WHO ARE ABUSING THE SYSTEM THE MOST. Maybe that doesn't include you but that still does not change the fact that you are already supposed to be paying this tax. And that it's not a new tax. Maybe if I keep repeating that it will get through your thick skull. You are already supposed to be paying this tax. It's not a new tax. If you are not paying what you're supposed to be and bitching about other people who are doing the same you are a hypocrite. If you continue to bitch about this "new tax" then you are ignorant.

Oh yeah, and in case you missed it, that 1935 law specifically states it was "designed to level the playing field between in-state retailers who are required to collect tax, and some out-of-state retailers who are not." Did you get that?


RE: Hypocrisy and Ignorance, So Sad
By ekv on 2/22/2010 11:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
"I am not saying people are wrong because they are leeching scumbags. I'm saying they are hypocrits." [hey dude, buy a vowel, an 'e'].

I've been paying my taxes. State taxes have been going up for a long time. Now it is time to do something about it. If you want to call me a hypocrite then fine. But I'm increasingly stirred not to be a party to out-of-control spending. Remember Prop. 13? oh, woops, not old enough eh? About the only way to get a politicians attention is to hit them in the wallet. Less tax revenue does get their attention. But instead of cutting back they now want to implement draconian Big Brother solutions? Outrageous.


RE: Hypocrisy and Ignorance, So Sad
By nvmarino on 2/23/2010 3:33:16 AM , Rating: 2
Bringing my age in to question and yet you're the one referring to me as 'dude'? Interesting... Well ok pops, you want to have a look back at history have a look at this:

**********************************************
Use tax

On July 1, 1935, Section 6201 of the Revenue and Taxation Code became law. It established the use tax as a mechanism for leveling the playing field for California businesses. Use tax eliminates the price disadvantage to California businesses when California consumers buy taxable merchandise from out-of-state retailers.

In general, taxpayers must pay California use tax when these conditions are met:

* Purchases are made out of state.
* The seller does not collect California sales or use tax.
* The taxpayer uses, gives away, stores, or consumes the item in this state.
**********************************************

Any chance you're old enough to remember 1935?

In case you missed it you're not really one of the ones I'm referring to as a hypocrite (this time with the 'e' dude, pops). You're one of the ignorant ones that doesn't get this is something everyone should have been paying all along and yet very few people actually do.


RE: Hypocrisy and Ignorance, So Sad
By ekv on 2/24/2010 5:22:26 AM , Rating: 2
Use tax? Right, already mentioned that "Yes, I'm supposed to pay Use Tax."

Have I paid it in the past? yes.

Do I remember 1935? no, you? If so, then I'm curious if you remember the title of this article? Hmm, "Californian Lawmakers Hungrily Eye Amazon's Untaxed Sales".

Hence my point about Prop 13 and draconian measures to collect taxes. Which means you weren't here when that went down and you don't know what it's about.

Yes, you were and are referring to me as a hypocrite. As far as "ignorant" ... looks like somebody other than me is missing the point.

Perhaps you'd care to opine about "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

Chances are though, you're the one who ought to shut their mouth.



By chagrinnin on 2/22/2010 7:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
***7 crickets were hurt during the posting of this comment***


Easy to move
By orgy08 on 2/22/2010 12:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
One thing states need to consider is that companies such as Amazon or Newegg can EASILY move to another state. They move their warehouse to another state and the customer never notices, except maybe a change in shipping time depending on the distance from the old location. Then the state would lose any tax it used to collect from in-state online sales.




RE: Easy to move
By MonkeyPaw on 2/22/2010 12:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say "easy" so quickly. Amazon and newegg both have very advanced, automated warehouses. It would be a significant investment to relocate a facilty. Maybe they could phase in a new facility, but that's still a lot of capital.

I love the taxation without representation states are trying. What benefits does CA provide amazon, other than a customer base, which is just good fortune on the state's part? Sure, the company ships goods there, but they use shipping companies that already pay taxes on their commerce, their property, and even their fuel usage! Seems like every state that amazon serves is already quite blessed. But no, they always want more, and they don't hesitate to change laws to do it.

"my advice to those who die, declare the pennies on your eyes."


RE: Easy to move
By walk2k on 2/22/2010 1:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you understand the issue. Amazon already is not located in CA, that's why they don't have to collect sales taxes for sales to CA residents.


RE: Easy to move
By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2010 1:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly and if any state should be able to collect a sales tax its the state that has the warehouse not California. The whole reason companies are leaving California is because of the outragous taxes, I don't see why California should have the right to chase them to the other states and nail them for tax money.


lower taxes are good? no way!
By bdot on 2/22/2010 12:24:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
That's helped the business grow tremendously, but has angered lawmakers.


Wait so, the less the government steals the more successful you can be? I thought the government was helping and creating and all that feel good fluffy stuff.

quote:
You know, there's two schools in economics on this, one is that there are some good taxes and the other is that no taxes are good taxes. I'm in the latter category. I don't believe any taxes are good taxes.

-Stephen Harper, PM




RE: lower taxes are good? no way!
By Fracture on 2/22/2010 5:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
- James Madison

quote:
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.
- Benjamin Franklin

Simply summarized:
1)California should put an end to pensions and fund what it currently owes
2)Congress should end Social Security
3)Obama should give up on National Health Care (reform to the current system is welcome, but should not be a right to all).
4)Focus on schools. The payoff won't come until they grow up, but crime rate will drop.
5)Budget conservatively, not on ever-increasing revenue fueled by insane housing sales

Rate how you wish, but if you're in your 20's like me, you know Social Security won't be there when you retire. Stop the charade early!


By JonnyDough on 2/22/2010 5:29:56 PM , Rating: 2
Nail on the head and all that.

The problem is the capitalist society and a large central government.

I'm glad I work for the state.


The villainous precent of taxation
By odiHnaD on 2/22/2010 12:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him..."

- Professor De La Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlien




RE: The villainous precent of taxation
By rcc on 2/22/2010 2:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
+3 points for the reference. A lot of people hear should read the book.


RE: The villainous precent of taxation
By rcc on 2/22/2010 2:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
hear = here

Note to self, read the freakin' preview. : )


By porkpie on 2/22/2010 3:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
I particularly like the book's idea of having politicians pay to fund government out of their own pocket. An excellent means to keep government small and unintrusive.


Flat Tax
By justsomeone on 2/22/2010 3:31:44 PM , Rating: 3
Flat tax FTW. State and federal. It's just the only fair way IMO. Then the playing field is level everywhere for commerce.




RE: Flat Tax
By justsomeone on 2/22/2010 3:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
income tax only that is. forget sales tax since retailers want to cry foul over all this stuff.


RE: Flat Tax
By jonmcc33 on 2/23/2010 9:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
There isn't a state tax in Florida.


By cosmeticslydia on 2/22/2010 1:06:12 PM , Rating: 1
As someone who sells on line in California I want to see out of state retailers required to collect salestax. This would help me compete. Right now I have to compete with an illegal 8% price advantage that my out of state competitors have. I am well aware that on line buyers don't pay the use tax they are required to pay. Most probably don't even know they owe it. This is a tax that needs to be collected! It will benefit California businesses!




By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2010 1:35:48 PM , Rating: 4
you shouldn't have opened an online business in California dummy.


I think something has to be done about this.
By rudy on 2/22/2010 2:45:59 PM , Rating: 2
But now is the wrong time right now we need tax breaks. But it is a little rediculous that most people decide to choose out of state vendors to get something just to save on the sales tax. This is bad for everyone a state does not get its taxes and a truck drives much further to delive a product. This is the result of good things like our extremely efficient shipping with UPS and Fedex quick turn around in warehouses and a great supply chain. But overall I think somehow the federal gov needs to step in and make some rule like everyone must pay local taxes and any company that ships must be registered in all states it ships too.

I often find myself only purchasing from online stores like newegg rather then dell, or locally because of the sales tax. I however know that overall the governments poor law making has caused an inefficient system to to run which in the end does not add any value to our country.




By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2010 3:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
Government should save in boom times and dip into saving during lean times just as we all have to do with our personal finances. Can we convince them to do this, hell no.


tax tax tax
By Nutzo on 2/22/2010 7:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
As someone who lives in California....
If this passes, I guess I'll have no choice but to save up all my expensive purchases, and wait to buy when I'm visiting another state on vacation.




RE: tax tax tax
By ekv on 2/22/2010 11:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking about what I was going to do. Now I know. Thanks.

Got relatives in Oregon I haven't visited in a while. The relatives are liberals, but No Sales Tax could worth the visit for my next computer. Just have to bring some Kool-Aid along... 8)


Tax and Spend
By oxymojoe on 2/22/2010 12:31:43 PM , Rating: 3
Instead of taxing everyone more, how about just giving away less? Entitlements must be cut, and I'm disabled receiving Social Security disability and Medicare. I don't get much, but if there was a plan to cut everyone's SS payments I would support it for the good of our country.

These payments (and defense) eat up the vast majority of our budget and absolutely must be reigned in. If the average American takes a hit because 1 or 2 people in a family are out of work, then so should I, and everyone like me.




Wrong lyrics.
By Spivonious on 2/22/2010 12:52:58 PM , Rating: 1
"if you try to sit, I'll tax your feet."

It's actually "if you take a walk, I'll tax your feet." Later it's "if you try to sit, I'll tax your seat."




RE: Wrong lyrics.
By Spivonious on 2/22/2010 4:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
I see it's fixed now. Thanks, Jason.


I've said it for 15 years now...
By CZroe on 2/22/2010 12:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
I've said it for 15 years now: Online sales should not be any different than mail-order by catalog, telephone, or home-shopping channel/TV commercial. You do not target it with an "online tax," you target ALL with a mail-order tax.

The difference is that the catalog is interactive. How does that make it any different in the eyes of the tax man? If I make an interactive phone system which you browsed through prompts entered on the keypad and get real-time inventory, shopping carts, and so on, would that be so different from current automated phone ordering systems that it would be taxeddifferently? No.

How dare my magazine publisher allow me to renew my subscription by phone without charging a phone sales tax!




grr
By Chiisuchianu on 2/22/2010 2:08:16 PM , Rating: 2
Damn progressives. Ron Paul save us! :)




By Ammohunt on 2/22/2010 2:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
I live in Colorado which has the same type of bill that would tax internet trasactions....i have 49 other states to choose from to live. Something California hasn't figured out yet anyone with any sense would never make California their primary residence. Even Oprah doesn't live their full time.




Just another reason...
By Devil07 on 2/22/2010 3:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
why I left the state of California in my rear-view mirror many years ago.




How this will play out...
By JonnyDough on 2/22/2010 5:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
1. Interstate commerce taxation makes the cost of doing business equal to that of international commerce.

2. Online sellers start looking to Canada and Mexico for sales.

3. Interstate commerce slows. People become infuriated with high taxation and the money goes to indirectly (gettin' paid through contracts) line politician's pockets instead of painting new lines on roads.

4. Government sees sales to Canada increase and decides to tax exports and imports more because they really blow at making bills. Heck, they can't even get healthcare working.

Govt: "Sales we haven't taxed enough? OMG lets get money THERE!"

5. Trade with Canada drops due to new taxation.

Canada withdraws from NAFTA to do business elsewhere...China.

6. U.S. needs more tax revenue and falls farther into despair.

HINT TO GOVERNMENT: FREE TRADE IS GOOD.

California is SCREWED. Might as well let Mexico have it, we pretty much already let them take it.




Wrong Spelling
By btc909 on 2/22/2010 11:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
As long as Arnie with his Orange "Clown Hair" is still the Govenator the proper spelling on California is Kalifornia.

Amazon, if you have any physical presences in Kalifornia start shutting they down NOW. Get out. Yes I generally order from Amazon to avoid the taxes & I will wait until whatever i'm ordering has free shipping before I order.

This state is a joke. Probably the 3 or 4 worse state in the Union only toped by Michigan, Ohio, & New Jersey.

The income tax hike, normally we would get back around 2500, now we will be lucky if we don't owe the State. Meaning we will get enough back from Federal to cover the State. This is the dirty secret people are just starting to see, plus the garbage job market as well.

Just announced today, a fire tax and a 911 tax!




By atlmann10 on 2/23/2010 3:29:47 AM , Rating: 2
If the government or the citizens it is supposed to represent (I know it doesn't in general, but it is supposed to), would put in place a taxation on consumption, rather than a tax on income, this would all be fixed. Yes you would have to pay more for every dollar you spend, but that can be managed. You cannot manage whatever the government (state, federal, SS, and everything else) takes. I could cut down my spending by 25% easy if I had to pay no taxes other than 15-20% of all purchases federal, and 10% state. Think about it I already pay over 20% + state + sales tax now. Take out the federal and state all I pay is sales tax. Rather than (round number 20+10+10=40 which is actually probably 50) 40-50% in all the other taxes I pay 30% sales tax flat on everything I buy. You have to see that I make 40-50% more already - 30%, at the most I pay 10% less than I pay now, and if I budget and actually broke it all down it would probably be 17% less or so. Plus everyone has to pat it because it is automatic on every product or thing I buy. Therefore all illegals would be paying it to period no question. Yes they would buy lower priced things much as I would, they would still be paying the same tax I am paying, as well as everyone who comes here for vacations, and every visa holder etc.




lots of ignorance
By rika13 on 2/23/2010 9:38:33 AM , Rating: 2
1. The American auto industry MUST survive.

In WW2 it was their assembly lines our sisters, daughters and wives were making the fighters, bombers, tanks, etc. that our husbands, brothers and sons went to war with (btw, this was a big push for sexual equality in the workplace). If there is another such war and we do not have an automotive industry that can be retooled to produce the machines of war, we're screwed. It has to be American because we can't depend on a potential enemy to make our stuff, not only for the obvious reason that our enemy isn't dumb enough to build tanks for us, but also because it means our advanced technology would be in their hands.

2. Democrats seem to do everything possible to prevent recovery.

It is either idiocy or intent, but virtually every Democrat action is a direct roadblock to recovery. Increasing business taxes keeps people from being employed and raises prices. Raising sales taxes prevents people from purchasing products since it raises prices, government created inflation. The long term effects will be even less consumer spending, less income for states, and even higher demand for social programs.

The only result of higher taxation is stagflation, the dire combination of stagnation and inflation.

3. Obama and the democrats massively increased the deficit and the debt.

Bush's (whom is the first President to hold a Master's in business) 2006 budget (the last one before the dems took congress, budgets are made the year before) was highly restrained, to the point that he predicted the 2010 budget to have a deficit of 1.5%, defense spending rose mostly due to sorely needed modernization, not terrorism.

Contrast this to the Obama (yet another lawyer) budgets, with his Enabling Act-level super-majority in Congress, his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, also known as his stimulus) was approximately 800 billion dollars of spending and supposed (but nowhere to be seen) tax cuts, a large amount of the spending (approximately 9000 earmarks) was for Democrat pet projects that provide no actual economic stimulus (2 billion dollar high speed maglev train from Las Vegas to Disneyland [in CA], 30 million as a outright bribe to Pelosi to save the Salt Harvest Marsh Mouse, a pet project of hers, 5.8 million for a building to be named after Ted Kennedy)

The push for stimulus is from a populist resurgence of Keynesian economics (the people want someone to save them).

This is something socialists tend to enjoy because it gives them an excuse to meddle in the free market when they don't need to. Keynesian economics differs from Stalinist in that the only government action is to correct a serious imbalance in the private sector, since businesses typically do not have macroeconomic concerns, only microeconomic ones (some larger companies and banks do charitably help however), as opposed to the various Marxist theories where the entire economy is under state control.

In summary, the recession, if not (but most likely, due to higher spending and taxation) created by Democrats during their time in Congress, definitely benefits them and their socialist agendas. It creates a desire in the voters for more government intervention, which their media arms (whom control most of the press, except FOX) shape and grow. It also creates a need for government assistance, which means more people are dependent upon such programs which Democrats love to expand, create, and fund with higher taxation.




Death of Democracy
By thirdshop on 2/24/2010 12:32:36 AM , Rating: 2
The sad truth is that all democracies die once the masses discover they can vote themselves endless entitlements. For examples take a look at whats happening in Greece, Spain, and Portugal. The rest of Europe is not far behind and it looks as if the U.S.A. is heading in that direction.




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki