Sign the petition to veto the internet tax bill

[JW]

At the risk of being a bit spammy... This affects all of us.

I found this petition on the Lecroy Yahoo group.

http://wh.gov/z7dt

Please go to the link below and create an account on the White House site
and then sign the petition to have President Obama veto the Internet Tax
Bill the U.S. Senate passed on Monday May 6,2013. This is the last chance
America has before it becomes law.

It is your duty as a taxpayer to have your voice heard. There needs to be
100,000 signatures.

This is yet another tax grab from the citizens of one of the most taxed
nations on earth.

Once it is passed it will be just like the income tax! It will never go
away. If you remember your history the income tax was touted as a
temporary tax not to exceed 1% of income. Well we all know where that
went...

[George Herold]

On May 7, 5:39 am, JW <n...@dev.null> wrote:
> At the risk of being a bit spammy... This affects all of us.
>
> I found this petition on the Lecroy Yahoo group.
>
> http://wh.gov/z7dt
>
> Please go to the link below and create an account on the White House site
> and then sign the petition to have  President Obama veto the Internet Tax
> Bill the U.S. Senate passed on Monday May 6,2013.


"This is the last chance America has before it becomes law."

Nah, It'll most likely die in the house.

George H.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 7, 8:47 am, George Herold <gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 5:39 am, JW <n...@dev.null> wrote:
>
> > At the risk of being a bit spammy... This affects all of us.
>
> > I found this petition on the Lecroy Yahoo group.
>
> >http://wh.gov/z7dt
>
> > Please go to the link below and create an account on the White House site
> > and then sign the petition to have  President Obama veto the Internet Tax
> > Bill the U.S. Senate passed on Monday May 6,2013.
>
> "This is the last chance America has before it becomes law."
> Nah, It'll most likely die in the house.

Hopefully, but don't count on it. There are a lot of big-government
Republicans who like big government, just a different sort than the
other guys. AFAICT Obama's for it--he wants a national sales tax. It
doesn't hurt to ask, but appealing to the House is more likely to
work.

I have mixed feelings, but on balance it seems like a horrible idea.

1) States have the right to collect taxes on commerce inside their
state. They depend on sales taxes and taxing their citizens. That's
fine, but requiring citizen A to collect [state B's state and local
sales tax] across state borders for a state they don't live in, is
troubling. Plus, all the monitoring and reporting this implies...

2) Right now states have some pressure to keep taxes lower,
competitive. With this bill they could raise rates confidently,
without worrying their citizens could buy elsewhere for less.
Competition between states is healthy--helps keep them efficient--so
that's bad.

3) It's not clear to me how internet sales are different than mail-
order sales, which have been free of sales tax forever, and backed up
by SCOTUS. Are they proposing to tax mail-order too?

Net, ISTM it will reduce purchasing choices, advantage the big box
stores, discourage small enterprise, discourage interstate commerce,
reduce sales tax competition among states, and put us on the road to a
national sales tax.

The last item might be good if it replaced the income tax, but that's
not the plan. We're taxed enough already.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Robert Macy]

Interesting 'name' because this tax really is 'an across, out of
region tax bill'

Once the name gets entrenched, taxing access can't be far behind.

[George Herold]

Hi James, Yeah I'm not really sure how I feel about it. For my state
(NY) I'm required to declare all my out of state purchases and add the
uncollected sales tax to my bill. So 'in theory' it's already
collected. 'In practice' we add ~$25-50 on that line item and call it
done.

I don't like the idea of putting the onus on the small
businesses. (I wonder what we do here?) So most of our customers
(Colleges and Uni’s) are tax exempt, but for California and Virginia
we collect the tax and then send it to them... (Virginia is really
weird.)

George H.

[hamilton]

On 5/7/2013 7:51 AM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> other guys. AFAICT Obama's for it--he wants a national sales tax.

AFAICT = As Far As I Can Tell

so, you don't know for sure, You can be bothered by facts.

Go figure.

[rickman]

Signing petitions is BS, if you want to do something write your
congressperson a *letter*. That gets their attention!

--

Rick

[JW]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 08:30:53 -0600 hamilton <hami...@nothere.com> wrote
in Message id: <kmb309$cg7$1...@dont-email.me>:

ASSuming this is true:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/senate_passes_internet_sales_tax_LwgTFwM9uZQRXPweBwgk7L
"From ASSOCIATED PRESS"

"The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 69 to 27, getting support from
Republicans and Democrats alike. But opposition from some conservatives
who view it as a tax increase will make it a tougher sell in the House.
President Barack Obama has conveyed his support for the measure."

[rickman]

> (Colleges and Uni�s) are tax exempt, but for California and Virginia

> we collect the tax and then send it to them... (Virginia is really
> weird.)

Neither the onus or anything else is being put on the small business.
The law passed in the Senate only requires that companies with over $1M
revenue collect the sales taxes.

I've heard arguments saying this is very difficult because of all the
jurisdictions involved. In many places it isn't just a state tax, local
governments get in on the act. That can make it very difficult to do
correctly. If my post office is Herndon, does that mean I have to pay
Herndon sales tax? I'm not actually in the town of Herndon.

What about mail order? Will this law impact *all* mail order or just
Internet sales? I haven't heard that yet.

--

Rick

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 7, 10:30 am, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 5/7/2013 7:51 AM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > other guys.  AFAICT Obama's for it--he wants a national sales tax.
>
> AFAICT = As Far As I Can Tell

Correct.

> so, you don't know for sure, You can be bothered by facts.
>
> Go figure.

I made a guess, and clearly labelled it as such. Am I not allowed?
Do you disagree, have another judgement/opinion? On what basis? Where
are your facts?

Here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/online-sales-tax-bill_n_3225867.html
"The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 69 to 27, [...]. President
Barack Obama has conveyed his support for the measure." --HuffPo

Was I wrong?

Q.E.D.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 05:39:24 -0400, JW <no...@dev.null> wrote:

>At the risk of being a bit spammy... This affects all of us.
>
>I found this petition on the Lecroy Yahoo group.
>
>http://wh.gov/z7dt
>
>Please go to the link below and create an account on the White House site
>and then sign the petition to have President Obama veto the Internet Tax
>Bill the U.S. Senate passed on Monday May 6,2013. This is the last chance
>America has before it becomes law.

Obama? Veto a tax bill?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 05:39:24 -0400, JW <no...@dev.null> wrote:

I have mixed emotions about this.

(1) It hits the little guy hard, the big corp trivially, so that
concerns me.

But...

(2) The little guy is the likely culprit who voted for "hope and
change" in the first place, so maybe this is just desserts. Elections
have consequences >:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 05:39:24 -0400, JW <no...@dev.null> wrote:

>I found this petition on the Lecroy Yahoo group.
>http://wh.gov/z7dt

You might want to look at the other 130 petitions on the Whitehouse
site:
<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions>
Very few could be considered serious, which makes me wonder if Obama
will consider this petition seriously. Oddly, if I filter by "Budget
and Taxes" or "Economy" the aformentioned petition doesn't appear.
Searching for "Internet" also fails to show the petition. It's either
a broken web site or a conspiracy.



--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[George Herold]

Hmm, a million is sales is not that much... we do over a 1 mil, ~10
employees, (some part time so it's hard to count.) (profits are less
than $1M :^)

George H.

>
> I've heard arguments saying this is very difficult because of all the
> jurisdictions involved.  In many places it isn't just a state tax, local
> governments get in on the act.  That can make it very difficult to do
> correctly.  If my post office is Herndon, does that mean I have to pay
> Herndon sales tax?  I'm not actually in the town of Herndon.
>
> What about mail order?  Will this law impact *all* mail order or just
> Internet sales?  I haven't heard that yet.
>
> --
>

> Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[JW]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 08:02:17 -0700 Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote in Message id: <ca5io814c5afdo20v...@4ax.com>:

>or a conspiracy.

Shiny side out! ;)

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

It's pretty hard to survive if your productivity is < $100k per
employee.

> > I've heard arguments saying this is very difficult because of all the
> > jurisdictions involved.  In many places it isn't just a state tax, local
> > governments get in on the act.  That can make it very difficult to do
> > correctly.  If my post office is Herndon, does that mean I have to pay
> > Herndon sales tax?  I'm not actually in the town of Herndon.
>
> > What about mail order?  Will this law impact *all* mail order or just
> > Internet sales?  I haven't heard that yet.

SCOTUS has said states can't tax mail-order unless the business is
operating (domiciled) in that state, in one form or another. I don't
recall the reasoning.

It's not clear how the internet is or should be different from mail
order.

I imagine the Post Office will take a big hit, since they do a lot of
the internet-sales deliveries that we won't be getting any more.
Ditto UPS and FedEx.

If Congress leaves mail order alone, we'll all just browse on the web
then call up and order on the phone or send in our checks by mail.
FORWARD!

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 7, 11:33 am, JW <n...@dev.null> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 May 2013 08:02:17 -0700 Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

> wrote in Message id: <ca5io814c5afdo20vj6nn8qg900kos8...@4ax.com>:

>
> >or a conspiracy.
>
> Shiny side out! ;)

LOL! That's what they WANT you to think!

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[miso]

On 5/7/2013 6:51 AM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Hopefully, but don't count on it. There are a lot of big-government
> Republicans who like big government, just a different sort than the
> other guys. AFAICT Obama's for it--he wants a national sales tax. It
> doesn't hurt to ask, but appealing to the House is more likely to
> work.
>

> Cheers,
> James Arthur
>

All Republicans like big government. There is no DoD project they won't
fund. Worse yet, they buy items the DoD doesn't want like more cargo
planes, tanks, etc.

And of course, the GOP interferes with the rights of women regarding
their bodies. You can't get anymore big government than a government
mandated vaginal ultrasound probe.

Regarding the national sales tax, that is a GOP idea.
> http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/considering-national-sales-tax

Finally, just look at the record. Government always grows when the GOP
is in charge. Reagan, Bush I and II. Only Clinton reduced the size of
government.

[miso]

On 5/7/2013 8:02 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:

> (2) The little guy is the likely culprit who voted for "hope and
> change" in the first place, so maybe this is just desserts. Elections
> have consequences >:-}
>
> ...Jim Thompson
>

Yes. Republicans stacked the Supreme Court with activist judges, who in
turn SELECTED George W. Bush as president. Then the world was fucked.

[Jim Thompson]

Your mental illness approaches that of Larkin.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 7, 12:53 pm, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:

> On 5/7/2013 6:51 AM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Regarding the national sales tax, that is a GOP idea.
>

> >http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/considering-national-sale...

a) You missed the part about INSTEAD OF a federal income tax. Obama
wants it IN ADDITION TO.
b) Cato are libertarians, not GOP.


--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 7, 10:47 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ooops, mail order too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/online-sales-tax-bill_n_3225867.html
"The bill would empower states to require businesses to collect taxes
for products they sell on the Internet, in catalogs and through radio
and TV ads. Under the legislation, the sales taxes would be sent to
the state where the shopper lives."

After consideration, states shouldn't be able to tax outside their
borders. To the extent that creates a tax-free enterprise zone, it
seems a good thing.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[lang...@fonz.dk]

The european way seems reasonable, once a company's combined sale to
a country
reaches some minimum they have to collect VAT four the buyers
country so buying stuff over the internet is taxed no different than
buying
in a physical store. Below the minium the VAT rate is sellers country

So an internet shop that does very little sale to country A doesn't
have to
figure out how to handle their tax, but they can't game the system by
putting
the internet store in a low VAT location

when buying from outside EU it is alway buyers VAT rate

-Lasse

[John Larkin]

Sales tax, instead of business taxes, makes sense. It's better if
people have jobs, and can buy things. And sales tax is essentially
optional.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom laser drivers and controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

Having states (and countries) compete with one another to keep
government efficient and tax rates low is a good thing.

In the US, people often go to other cities to avoid higher taxes in
their own. My Mom bought her last two cars from distant dealers,
saving thousands. Naturally the big welfare-centers like Los Angeles
don't like that, so they made it illegal--now your city gets the tax
no matter what.

That's good and bad I suppose. On the bad side, now a Californian
city gets little financial advantage from lower taxes than their
neighbors. Also, they can raise sales taxes without fear their
citizens--the ones they now own--might have other choices. On the
good, maybe it'll spur people to be more interested in their local
government's spending.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[lang...@fonz.dk]

here you can just to another country and buy if you want and you pay
VAT there (there is some limit and only for personal use)

the rules just mean that an internet store won't have a tax advantage
over a physical store, the VAT is the same whether you go into a
store
in country A or buy it over the internet and get it shipped to country
A

cars are a bit special here, there's a ~180% car tax + 25% VAT but it
is
not really for the car, it is for the registration and plates so you
can
drive it on the road

-Lasse

[John Larkin]

>> > > > (Colleges and Uni�s) are tax exempt, but for California and Virginia

180+25 is 205 per cent! Is that real? What does a small, cheap car
wind up costing?

[lang...@fonz.dk]

On May 7, 8:59 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 11:50:03 -0700 (PDT), "langw...@fonz.dk"

to be fair the tax on the first ~14000$ is only 105% :P

there's a few cars in the ~17000$ range but they a small with tiny
engines
A Fiat 500 starts at ~25000$

the list price for something like an Audi A3 1.8 TFSI is 70000$

-Lasse

[lang...@fonz.dk]

and the tax is on the price including VAT so it is really
(price*1.25)*1.80 = 225%


-Lasse

[John Larkin]

Astounding. We can get a Honda Civic here for under $16K. Or a Kia for
12.4

My flaming red A3 3.2 Quattro full of options cost $41K new; I bought
it slightly used for about $27K, a lifetime record for car cost. Does
that tax apply to used cars too?

We pay sales tax, about 8%, and an annual license fee, a couple of
hundred dollars, which declines as a car loses value.

Did I mention that it's red?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/A3a.jpg

[lang...@fonz.dk]

On May 7, 10:34 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 12:18:23 -0700 (PDT), "langw...@fonz.dk"

I just checked the cheapest civic is a 1.4, ~35000$

>
> My flaming red A3 3.2 Quattro full of options cost $41K new; I bought
> it slightly used for about $27K, a lifetime record for car cost. Does
> that tax apply to used cars too?

no it is only the first time it is registered, if you buy used from
another country the tax is based on what a similar car would cost

>
> We pay sales tax, about 8%, and an annual license fee, a couple of
> hundred dollars, which declines as a car loses value.

I drive a van because back when it was registered the tax was only
30%
for cars with only has front seats and a max total weight over 2000kg
it was and old rules that was made for carpenters, painter etc. that
needed a car with just two seat and room for tools

They changed the rules a few years ago so I now have to pay ~1500$ a
year to drive it to compensate for the "saved" tax

-Lasse

[miso]

I speak truth to power.

Have fun drinking the Fox News koolaid.

[miso]

Libertarians are just Republicans that like to smoke dope.

Trust me, the IRS is going nowhere. It will just be another tax. Worse
of all, you will be hitting all the baby boomers who just finished their
income earning years with a consumption tax as they spend their savings.
That is essentially taxing money that has already been taxed.

Then again, Republicans don't have an issue with double taxation unless
it helps corporations.

"Corporations are people my friend."

[miso]

> Sales tax, instead of business taxes, makes sense. It's better if
> people have jobs, and can buy things. And sales tax is essentially
> optional.
>
>

Sure. You don't have to buy groceries. You can grow your own food. Or
you can just starve to death.

As we all know, the biggest leaches are businesses. They pay very little
tax, but place a great demand on services.

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 14:51:43 -0700, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>I speak truth to power.
>
>Have fun drinking the Fox News koolaid.

Miso is a mental midget

[Jim Thompson]

[Jim Thompson]

[tm]

"miso" <mi...@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:kmbtch$t0i$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

Take you meds miso. You are foaming at the mouth.

[miso]

> Miso is a mental midget
>
> ...Jim Thompson
>

I post truth to power. You post elementary school level insults. What's
next? Are you going to say I have cooties?

[Jim Thompson]

"truth to power"? Bwahahahahaha!

Cooties? I don't know... worms are more likely.

You're clearly mentally deranged. You're like Larkin, post BS instead
of circuits.

[John Fields]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 05:39:24 -0400, JW <no...@dev.null> wrote:

>At the risk of being a bit spammy... This affects all of us.
>
>I found this petition on the Lecroy Yahoo group.
>
>http://wh.gov/z7dt
>
>Please go to the link below and create an account on the White House site
>and then sign the petition to have President Obama veto the Internet Tax
>Bill the U.S. Senate passed on Monday May 6,2013. This is the last chance
>America has before it becomes law.
>

>It is your duty as a taxpayer to have your voice heard. There needs to be
>100,000 signatures.
>
>This is yet another tax grab from the citizens of one of the most taxed
>nations on earth.

---
And also one of the most oppressed, since about 1% of its citizens are
incarcerated.
---

>Once it is passed it will be just like the income tax! It will never go
>away. If you remember your history the income tax was touted as a
>temporary tax not to exceed 1% of income. Well we all know where that
>went...

---
Indeed.

And, since an installed Government's job has always been and always
will be to assure its own survival...
--
JF

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 14:57:09 -0700, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>> Sales tax, instead of business taxes, makes sense. It's better if
>> people have jobs, and can buy things. And sales tax is essentially
>> optional.
>>
>>
>
>Sure. You don't have to buy groceries. You can grow your own food. Or
>you can just starve to death.

California now exempts food and rent. It would be easy to exempt basic
food, clothes, rent, education, medical expenses, all within reason.
Used stuff is generally untaxed, too.

But, uh, starving? 45 million Americans get food stamps. America's big
problem is obesity, not hunger.

>
>As we all know, the biggest leaches are businesses. They pay very little
>tax, but place a great demand on services.

The problem is that business taxes, and penalties for hiring people,
make the cost of domestic businesses go up. Chinese manufacturers and
Indian call centers (and engineers!) don't pay those costs. With a
larger sales tax and low business taxes, domestic production would be
on a more even basis with Chinese imports... both would be taxed.

Services should be taxed. They mostly can't be outsourced to other
countries. Tax things that can't move, or the taxes will move them.

You can do what you think is fair, or do what helps the most people.
Business taxes are mostly paid by small, local outfits and avoided by
meganationals, so kill jobs.

Our marginal business tax rate is over 50%. GE pays nothing, Apple and
Google very little.

[rickman]

On 5/7/2013 7:01 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 07 May 2013 14:57:09 -0700, miso<mi...@sushi.com> wrote:
>
>>> Sales tax, instead of business taxes, makes sense. It's better if
>>> people have jobs, and can buy things. And sales tax is essentially
>>> optional.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Sure. You don't have to buy groceries. You can grow your own food. Or
>> you can just starve to death.
>
> California now exempts food and rent. It would be easy to exempt basic
> food, clothes, rent, education, medical expenses, all within reason.
> Used stuff is generally untaxed, too.

RENT??? Since when is paying rent sales taxed anywhere??? My GOD, the
world is going nuts... CA is one of the highest taxed states in the US.
Most places don't have sales tax on groceries, even VA cuts the sales
tax in half for groceries. But sales tax is normally only on tangible
items and so would not be on RENT.

> But, uh, starving? 45 million Americans get food stamps. America's big
> problem is obesity, not hunger.

...

>> As we all know, the biggest leaches are businesses. They pay very little
>> tax, but place a great demand on services.
>
> The problem is that business taxes, and penalties for hiring people,
> make the cost of domestic businesses go up. Chinese manufacturers and
> Indian call centers (and engineers!) don't pay those costs. With a
> larger sales tax and low business taxes, domestic production would be
> on a more even basis with Chinese imports... both would be taxed.

Really, money can't be made by hiring people to do work? I feel sorry
for Walmart, I guess they are losing money hand over fist.

> Services should be taxed. They mostly can't be outsourced to other
> countries. Tax things that can't move, or the taxes will move them.

If it moves tax it, no, wait, isn't that "if it moves, salute it"?

> You can do what you think is fair, or do what helps the most people.
> Business taxes are mostly paid by small, local outfits and avoided by
> meganationals, so kill jobs.

How do the taxes kill jobs exactly?

> Our marginal business tax rate is over 50%. GE pays nothing, Apple and
> Google very little.

Only 50%? So you keep 50%. So you *do* make profit even after taxes?
I thought for a moment you were saying that the taxes killed off all
your jobs. Obviously not.

--

Rick

[Bill Bowden]

Years ago, I drove a van and put it in storage for 3 years while I was
out of the country. During my absense, the van was stolen and later
recovered. When I returned home and tried to renew the registration, I
was asked if the van had been operated anytime on the road during the
last 3 years, and I answered that a thief had stolen the vehicle and
briefly drove it on the road, but I had not driven it. Because the
vehicle had been operated on public roads, I was required to pay back
registration fees which wasn't much, so I just payed it, and had no
other choice. As I remember, I wrote a letter to my representative and
received a sympathetic response, and advice that I would need to
collect the registration fees from the thief who stole my van.

Isn't govenment wonderful?

-Bill

[Jim Thompson]

It's Californica, what can you say/

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 21:13:41 -0400, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Profits that are taxed can't buy buildings, equipment, or R&D. Disincentives to
hiring - FICA, unemployment, workman's comp, other stuff, all discourage hiring
and encourage automation and especially outsourcing.

At 50%+ tax level, it becomes more productive to avoid taxation than to make
stuff.

>
>
>> Our marginal business tax rate is over 50%. GE pays nothing, Apple and
>> Google very little.
>
>Only 50%? So you keep 50%. So you *do* make profit even after taxes?
>I thought for a moment you were saying that the taxes killed off all
>your jobs. Obviously not.

Not all, but it really changes the things that we optimize. The result isn't in
the best interest of the economy. High corporate taxation *increases* wealth
disparity.

Have you ever run a business? You sound hostile to business.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom timing and laser controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 07 May 2013 09:57:34 -0700, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:
>
> >On 5/7/2013 8:02 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> >
> >> (2) The little guy is the likely culprit who voted for "hope and
> >> change" in the first place, so maybe this is just desserts. Elections
> >> have consequences >:-}
> >>
> >> ...Jim Thompson
> >>
> >
> >Yes. Republicans stacked the Supreme Court with activist judges, who in
> >turn SELECTED George W. Bush as president. Then the world was fucked.
> >
> >
>
> Your mental illness approaches that of Larkin.


No, he's now on par with Sloman.

[Michael A. Terrell]

I've only spent $3700 on one car, and three pickup trucks in the last
26 years. That's about 39 cents per day. I've spent under $1000 in
repairs in that time.

[miso]

Yeah, if someone is injured on the job, they can just be a busker at the
Powell BART station. We don't need no stinkin' workers comp.

And if San Francisco starts to look like Calcutta because people have no
health care, you can always hire a driver and drive in a tinted limo.
Actually, I should say "Look more like Calcutta."

Sounds like you need a better accountant. Do you know about the software
loophole? If you buy software within California and receive no physical
product, that is you download the software and manuals, you can avoid
Ca. sales tax. We're talking the expensive six figures a seat software.
The scam dates back to Pete Wilson (no surprise there).

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 21:01:24 -0700, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>Yeah, if someone is injured on the job, they can just be a busker at the
>Powell BART station. We don't need no stinkin' workers comp.
>

>And if San Francisco starts to look like Calcutta...

Starts ?:-}

[rickman]

Money you invest in stuff is depreciated and you don't pay tax on it.
People who don't understand tax law make bad tax decisions. People who
just don't understand make bad decisions generally.

> At 50%+ tax level, it becomes more productive to avoid taxation than to make
> stuff.

Your math is still faulty. To avoid the tax you have to reduce your
profits 100%. Is that really useful?

>>> Our marginal business tax rate is over 50%. GE pays nothing, Apple and
>>> Google very little.
>>
>> Only 50%? So you keep 50%. So you *do* make profit even after taxes?
>> I thought for a moment you were saying that the taxes killed off all
>> your jobs. Obviously not.
>
> Not all, but it really changes the things that we optimize. The result isn't in
> the best interest of the economy. High corporate taxation *increases* wealth
> disparity.
>
> Have you ever run a business? You sound hostile to business.

I'm sorry, but even if you only get to keep 50%, it is still
"profitable" to make profits.

Have I ever run a business? LOL! Yes, since 1999.

--

Rick

[rickman]

I don't know about "stacked" and "activist", but you do know it was the
Supreme Court who decided the 2000 election, right? Every judge,
regardless of their voting record on the court, voted in step with their
political party on this decision.

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 5/7/2013 11:02 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 07 May 2013 05:39:24 -0400, JW<no...@dev.null> wrote:
>

>> I found this petition on the Lecroy Yahoo group.
>> http://wh.gov/z7dt
>

> You might want to look at the other 130 petitions on the Whitehouse
> site:
> <https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions>
> Very few could be considered serious, which makes me wonder if Obama
> will consider this petition seriously. Oddly, if I filter by "Budget
> and Taxes" or "Economy" the aformentioned petition doesn't appear.
> Searching for "Internet" also fails to show the petition. It's either
> a broken web site or a conspiracy.

That's why I said to contact your elected representative!

--

Rick

[Greegor]

On May 7, 8:22 pm, Bill Bowden <bper...@bowdenshobbycircuits.info>
wrote:

http://epic.org/foia/fbi/stingray/

- EPIC Sues FBI to Obtain Details of Massive Biometric ID Database:
EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the FBI to
obtain documents about "Next Generation Identification", a massive
database with biometric identifiers on millions of Americans. The EPIC
lawsuit follows the FBI's failure to respond to EPIC's earlier FOIA
requests for technical specifications and contracts. According to
EPIC's complaint, "When completed, the NGI system will be the largest
biometric database in the world." NGI aggregates fingerprints, DNA
profiles, iris scans, palm prints,

voice identification profiles, photographs,

and other identifying information. The FBI will use facial recognition
to match images in the database against facial images obtained from
CCTV and elsewhere. For more information, see EPIC v. FBI - Next
Generation Identification, EPIC: Biometric Identifiers and EPIC: Face
Recognition. (Apr. 8, 2013)

- Court Rules for EPIC, Denies FBI Request for Delay in StingRay Case:
A federal judge in Washington, DC today issued an Opinion denying the
FBI's motion to delay the release of records sought under the Freedom
of Information Act. The decision follows from a lawsuit filed by EPIC
against the FBI for records about the agency's use of cell-site
simulator technology, commonly referred to as "StingRay." These
devices track cell phones and collect a vast amount of data from
telephone customers. The Court found that the FBI was not facing the
"exceptional circumstances" necessary to justify its proposed two-year
delay. The Court ordered the agency to produce all records, except
those subject to classification review, by August 1, 2013. For more
information, see EPIC v. FBI - StingRay. (Mar. 28, 2013)

- EPIC Obtains New Documents About FBI Cellphone Tracking Technology:
In the fifth interim release of documents in EPIC v. FBI, a Freedom of
Information Act lawsuit, the agency has turned over nearly 300 pages
about the surveillance technique directed toward users of mobile
phones. The documents obtained by EPIC reveal that agents have been
using

"cell site simulator" technologies, also known as "StingRay,"
"Triggerfish,"

or "Digital Analyzers" to monitor cell phones since 1995. Internal FBI
e-mails, also obtained by EPIC, reveal that agents went through
extensive training on these devices in 2007. In addition, a
presentation from the agency's Wireless Intercept and Tracking Team
argues that cell site simulators qualify for a low legal standard as a
"pen register device," an interpretation that was recently rejected by
a federal court in Texas. For more information, see EPIC v. FBI
(StingRay). (Feb. 12, 2013)

[Will Janoschka]

This whole thing is backwards, eliminate all sales tax
for over the counter purchases. It is so regressive.

Tax safes that require contracts. not for a six pack
of the finest beer that some "serf" wishes to trade for!!

If this non-government does not do that. all will
go to the barter system with no fiat currency
to tax. But all serfs, giving the finest backstrap
to Robin-Hood for finally putting a large arrow
through the fuckin Sherriff.
Your milage may vary!

[George Herold]

On May 7, 7:01 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Grin.. I'm not sure the exact tax rate we have to pay on profits, but
I know it's over 35%... I think there is some savings on local taxes
becasue the business is in a 'tax reduced work zone'.

Of course the big problem is that you make a profit! If you could
keep all the lovely green folding stuff without making a profit....
well then you'd be GE :^)

George H.

>
> --
>
> John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
>

> jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot comhttp://www.highlandtechnology.com

[dave]

On 05/08/2013 05:09 AM, George Herold wrote:

> snip.

Whoever decided that we should compete with Chinese workers was no
friend of American workers. You can't take all the jobs away then
complain that there are too many poor people. It'll get you lynched.

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 21:01:24 -0700, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>Yeah, if someone is injured on the job, they can just be a busker at the
>Powell BART station. We don't need no stinkin' workers comp.

Workers comp is crazy. If you touch a soldering iron, your rates are
4x higher than an office worker's. Some businesses have comp rates
that are over 100% of salary; guess who *they* hire! And there are
over 10 million people in the US collecting lifetime comp, many for
things that can't be measured or proven.

We've had one on-the-job injury in the company history, over 25 years.
A guy slipped on a stairway and bruised his butt about 10 years ago.
We've paid a fortune in workmans' comp over the life of the company,
enough to hire another person or two.

>
>And if San Francisco starts to look like Calcutta because people have no
>health care, you can always hire a driver and drive in a tinted limo.
>Actually, I should say "Look more like Calcutta."
>

The San Francisco economy is booming. There's a housing shortage and a
labor shortage. I can see six huge construction cranes from our roof.
Twitter, Dolby, Square, and Yelp have moved in a few blocks away.
Commercial and residential property is going for $1000 a square foot.
It's other parts of the country that are hurting, the rust belt, the
places that used to make cars and steel. The worker-guy jobs there are
are mostly gone.

>Sounds like you need a better accountant. Do you know about the software
>loophole? If you buy software within California and receive no physical
>product, that is you download the software and manuals, you can avoid
>Ca. sales tax. We're talking the expensive six figures a seat software.
>The scam dates back to Pete Wilson (no surprise there).

We don't spend a lot of money on software. We run an old version of
PADS for PCB layout; LT Spice is free. The FPGA stuff is free or
fairly cheap.

We did buy Solidworks and a couple seats of Photoshop and stuff like
that. Nuhertz. Lancero. Not a lot of money.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom laser drivers and controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

[John Larkin]

Yeah, show it as a taxable asset now and depreciate it slowly. It
amounts to a 20-year, interest-free loan to the government as a reward
for investing in productivity.

>People who don't understand tax law make bad tax decisions. People who
>just don't understand make bad decisions generally.
>
>
>> At 50%+ tax level, it becomes more productive to avoid taxation than to make
>> stuff.
>
>Your math is still faulty. To avoid the tax you have to reduce your
>profits 100%. Is that really useful?

The tax rates tilt us towards things that are expensable and away from
things that are taxed as assets. We understand this stuff.

We're lucky that we don't have a lot of foreign competition.
Businesses that do get hit hard. Nobody makes TVs or cell phones or
things like that in the US any more.

>
>
>>>> Our marginal business tax rate is over 50%. GE pays nothing, Apple and
>>>> Google very little.
>>>
>>> Only 50%? So you keep 50%. So you *do* make profit even after taxes?
>>> I thought for a moment you were saying that the taxes killed off all
>>> your jobs. Obviously not.
>>
>> Not all, but it really changes the things that we optimize. The result isn't in
>> the best interest of the economy. High corporate taxation *increases* wealth
>> disparity.
>>
>> Have you ever run a business? You sound hostile to business.
>
>I'm sorry, but even if you only get to keep 50%, it is still
>"profitable" to make profits.

"Profit" includes inventory, facility, equipment, work in process,
unsold product on shelves, accounts receivable, not just bundles of
cash in the bank. I can have a "profit" and run out of cash to pay
bills and salaries.

Within the USA, businesses move to states with lower taxes. They move
to other countries, too, and hire there. Not everyone can work for the
government.

>
>Have I ever run a business? LOL! Yes, since 1999.

And you don't think taxes slow you down, don't reduce growth and
hiring? Do you have employees?

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom laser drivers and controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

[George Herold]

Did I say that? I'm all in favor of bringing manufacturing back to
the US.
We need jobs for everyone. To ~quote H. Ford "who buys our cars?"

George H.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 7, 5:55 pm, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:

> On 5/7/2013 10:17 AM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 12:53 pm, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/7/2013 6:51 AM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> Regarding the national sales tax, that is a GOP idea.
>
> >>>http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/considering-national-sale...
>
> > a) You missed the part about INSTEAD OF a federal income tax.  Obama
> > wants it IN ADDITION TO.
> > b) Cato are libertarians, not GOP.
>
>

> Libertarians are just Republicans that like to smoke dope.

Hey, sure, make up whatever you want. You said "GOP"--nope. And you
misconstrued Cato's intention, which was to replace the progressive
income cluster-tax with something that would help Americans prosper.

The progressive envy tax, motivated by mean-spirited greed, tries to
tear down anyone who pokes above the mean. The hive-mind doesn't like
that.

> Trust me, the IRS is going nowhere. It will just be another tax. Worse
> of all, you will be hitting all the baby boomers who just finished their
> income earning years with a consumption tax as they spend their savings.
> That is essentially taxing money that has already been taxed.

Q: Ever wonder why Keynes' multiplier [A stimulates B, --> stimulates
C...] is only about 1.8 in progressive literature? Why doesn't it go
forever? A: taxes quickly confiscate it all--a few iterations of
x(n)=x(n-1)*.7 are all it takes.

> Then again, Republicans don't have an issue with double taxation unless
> it helps corporations.
>

> "Corporations are people my friend."

Yes, I'd think so. The Democrat Nat'l Party is a corporation--that's
people, isn't it?

Besides, we know corporations are people--Obamacare said so. That's a
fun quote--

"for the purposes of this section, the term ‘person’ includes any
corporation" --HR3590, section 9006(a).

Tasty.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 7, 5:57 pm, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
> > Sales tax, instead of business taxes, makes sense. It's better if
> > people have jobs, and can buy things. And sales tax is essentially
> > optional.
>
> Sure. You don't have to buy groceries. You can grow your own food. Or
> you can just starve to death.

So let's just charge the grocery store 40% tax--that won't increase
the price of groceries, right?

Let's tax employment too. A lot. That way we'll have lots more of
it.

And let's make it extra-complicated, so it's more efficient :-).

(I spent a couple hours last night following the links/references from
one IRS pub to the next, multiple worksheets + forms, to figure out if
some trivial travel expenses were deductible. America is much
wealthier as a result. Why, just imagine if I'd wasted last night
inventing something...)

> As we all know, the biggest leaches are businesses. They pay very little
> tax, but place a great demand on services.

Gee, you make it sound almost like companies are people.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 7, 7:01 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 07 May 2013 14:57:09 -0700, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
> >> Sales tax, instead of business taxes, makes sense. It's better if
> >> people have jobs, and can buy things. And sales tax is essentially
> >> optional.
>
> >Sure. You don't have to buy groceries. You can grow your own food. Or
> >you can just starve to death.
>
> California now exempts food and rent. It would be easy to exempt basic
> food, clothes, rent, education, medical expenses, all within reason.
> Used stuff is generally untaxed, too.
>
> But, uh, starving? 45 million Americans get food stamps. America's big
> problem is obesity, not hunger.

Hey, it's a health-plan!

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 8, 12:01 am, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
> Yeah, if someone is injured on the job, they can just be a busker at the
> Powell BART station. We don't need no stinkin' workers comp.
>
> And if San Francisco starts to look like Calcutta because people have no
> health care,

Even better, let's raise the cost of employment until none of them
have jobs. That'll fix it.

> you can always hire a driver and drive in a tinted limo.
> Actually, I should say "Look more like Calcutta."

Or "more like Detroit, Chicago, Harlem, Oakland" or one of those other
practitioners of progressivism.

> Sounds like you need a better accountant. Do you know about the software
> loophole? If you buy software within California and receive no physical
> product, that is you download the software and manuals, you can avoid
> Ca. sales tax. We're talking the expensive six figures a seat software.
> The scam dates back to Pete Wilson (no surprise there).

I think we should tax businesses and zero for people. That way
everyone would start businesses--we'd all be rich.

(How many people do you employ?)

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

That's a myth and a falsehood, reflecting a complete lack of
understanding of the whole thing.

The election was decided in Florida, by the FLSC, with judges crossing
party lines in their decision.

Even without that under the US Constitution, once FL certified their
results--which they did--it would've gone to the US House of
Representatives to decide if deadlocked. The House being majority
Republican at the time, it's doubtful they would've thought Gore the
best candidate.

So, SCOTUS did not decide the election, and there was never any
possibility Gore would win.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[rickman]

Really? So what was the supreme court decision about? I seem to recall
it having to do with a major issue in counting ballots... which could
have thrown the majority of the votes to the other side... No?

--

Rick

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 9, 11:03 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bush won the first count, and the automatic machine recount mandated
by FL law for close elections.

FLSC started suspending and changing the deadlines, voting standards,
and procedures after the fact.

The U.S. Constitution says each state's legislature determines how
their state's electors are chosen. Since the FLSC was re-writing
those procedures on the fly, after the fact, SCOTUS said to FLSC, "You
can't."

Worse, Gore wanted different counting standards in different counties,
customized to favor him, and FLSC was allowing that. SCOTUS ruled
separately that you can't do that either--that's cheating.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 12:57:55 -0700 (PDT), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

But Algore is worth $200e6 now. He wouldn't be that rich if he'd been
elected President.

I don't envy him: he's still Algore.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 9, 8:22 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2013 12:57:55 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com

I've never met a happy socialist. It's an inherently pessimistic,
unhopeful theory.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:58:48 -0700 (PDT), dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Engineers are usually interested in things, and the world is full of
cool things.

Socialists are usually interested in themselves. No wonder they are
pessimistic.

[P E Schoen]

"JW" wrote in message news:4piho85ibqmsaqds4...@4ax.com...

> At the risk of being a bit spammy... This affects all of us.

> I found this petition on the Lecroy Yahoo group.

> http://wh.gov/z7dt

The link does not give enough information to make a decision whether to sign
or not. And there are only 33 signatures out of 10,000 "needed". Actually, I
think an internet sales tax as well as a mail order sales tax is a good idea
to level the playing field, but if every retailer must keep track of 50
different states then it would be an unbearable burden. It should be a
National tax, perhaps 5% or 6%, and should apply to ALL sales. Basic food
should be tax-free, as it is in MD, but people should be encouraged to
purchase food locally to reduce the effective carbon imprint of long haul
transportation. Also, sales at Goodwill or Salvation Army should be
tax-free, and poor people should be expected to buy as much as possible from
such sources. And sales through Craig's List and flea markets should be
tax-free, except for those selling new items as a business other than a sole
proprietorship.

The tax should be collected by such entities as banks, credit card
companies, and PayPal, and transferred to a fund that is used for federally
funded state aid.

In MD, as a business, I am required to file an annual "Sales and Use Tax"
return, but except when I (rarely) sell parts to individuals, my sales and
services to businesses are non-taxable (or their responsibility), and my
purchases for business use are also non-taxable. Otherwise they might come
under "Use Tax", if they were not incorporated in products and resold. It
can be difficult to determine which purchases are subject to use tax, so in
many cases I just pay the 6% tax on various parts even though I may not be
legally required to do so. If I were to be audited, it would probably be
found that the sales tax I have voluntarily paid exceeds the use tax I may
be required to pay, so the MD Comptroller might owe me money.

Paul

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 11:02:05 AM UTC-4, Jim Thompson wrote:

>
> I have mixed emotions about this.
>
>
>
> (1) It hits the little guy hard, the big corp trivially, so that
>
> concerns me.
>
>
>
> But...

>
>
>
> (2) The little guy is the likely culprit who voted for "hope and
>
> change" in the first place, so maybe this is just desserts. Elections
>
> have consequences >:-}
>
>

There is a small business exemption in the proposed legislation, currently $500K or something, which opponents claim is way too small, thinking the exemption should be $30M!

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:51:36 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Hopefully, but don't count on it. There are a lot of big-government
>
> Republicans who like big government, just a different sort than the
>
> other guys. AFAICT Obama's for it--he wants a national sales tax. It
>
> doesn't hurt to ask, but appealing to the House is more likely to
>
> work.
>
>
>
> I have mixed feelings, but on balance it seems like a horrible idea.
>
>
>
> 1) States have the right to collect taxes on commerce inside their
>
> state. They depend on sales taxes and taxing their citizens. That's
>
> fine, but requiring citizen A to collect [state B's state and local
>
> sales tax] across state borders for a state they don't live in, is
>
> troubling. Plus, all the monitoring and reporting this implies...
>
>
>
> 2) Right now states have some pressure to keep taxes lower,
>
> competitive. With this bill they could raise rates confidently,
>
> without worrying their citizens could buy elsewhere for less.
>
> Competition between states is healthy--helps keep them efficient--so
>
> that's bad.
>
>
>
> 3) It's not clear to me how internet sales are different than mail-
>
> order sales, which have been free of sales tax forever, and backed up
>
> by SCOTUS. Are they proposing to tax mail-order too?
>
>
>
> Net, ISTM it will reduce purchasing choices, advantage the big box
>
> stores, discourage small enterprise, discourage interstate commerce,
>
> reduce sales tax competition among states, and put us on the road to a
>
> national sales tax.
>
>
>

> The last item might be good if it replaced the income tax, but that's
>
> not the plan. We're taxed enough already.
>

This is not how you approach the analysis of impending legislation. Congress generally relies on the Congressional Research Service to set the specifics of proposed legislation:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41853.pdf
In particular, report R41583 State Taxation of Internet Transactions by Maquire, is a good example of the superficiality of their thought processes (soon they will go to cartoons).

[rickman]

On 5/9/2013 3:57 PM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 9, 11:03 am, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/9/2013 10:12 AM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 8, 1:58 am, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2013 1:07 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Tue, 07 May 2013 09:57:34 -0700, miso<m...@sushi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 5/7/2013 8:02 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> (2) The little guy is the likely culprit who voted for "hope and
>>>>>>> change" in the first place, so maybe this is just desserts. Elections
>>>>>>> have consequences>:-}
>>
>>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>>>>> Yes. Republicans stacked the Supreme Court with activist judges, who in

>>>>>> turn SELECTED George W. Bush as president. Then the world was fucked..

None of that changes the fact that the US Supreme Court had a 5-4 vote,
strictly along party lines...

You are discussing the merits of the case which has *nothing* to do with
the discussion at hand. Go back and read the context.

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 5/10/2013 3:12 PM, P E Schoen wrote:
> "JW" wrote in message news:4piho85ibqmsaqds4...@4ax.com...
>
>> At the risk of being a bit spammy... This affects all of us.
>
>> I found this petition on the Lecroy Yahoo group.
>
>> http://wh.gov/z7dt
>
> The link does not give enough information to make a decision whether to
> sign or not. And there are only 33 signatures out of 10,000 "needed".
> Actually, I think an internet sales tax as well as a mail order sales
> tax is a good idea to level the playing field, but if every retailer
> must keep track of 50 different states then it would be an unbearable
> burden.

It's *not* 50 states which would be trivial. It is thousands of
jurisdictions when you count all the cities, towns and counties that
also charge sales tax.

I don't see how it will level the playing field. Only US corporations
will be collecting the sales tax pushing more Internet sales to
companies outside this country. No one talks about that.

> It should be a National tax, perhaps 5% or 6%, and should apply
> to ALL sales. Basic food should be tax-free, as it is in MD, but people
> should be encouraged to purchase food locally to reduce the effective
> carbon imprint of long haul transportation. Also, sales at Goodwill or
> Salvation Army should be tax-free, and poor people should be expected to
> buy as much as possible from such sources. And sales through Craig's
> List and flea markets should be tax-free, except for those selling new
> items as a business other than a sole proprietorship.

I don't know your politics, but this is a poorly thought out
rationalization. Why should it be nationwide? Does that mean the US
government will receive it? I think that would be a *big* problem.
Each state depends heavily on their sales tax. A few don't have sales
tax and they are set up to work that way. A national level sales tax
replacing all the local sales taxes would be a *huge* reorg of the
overall tax structure and would surely end up with a lot more tax paid
overall. How long do you think a 6% national sales tax would last?

BTW, "food" in Maryland is *not* free of sales tax. Only certain foods
are tax free and I believe they took sodas off of that list as so with
"junk food". I believe that if the law is strictly enforced, the girl
scouts and PTA bake sales have to charge sales tax.

Maryland even taxes water sold retail...

BTW, I'm leaving soon. I no longer can get a useful medical insurance
plan, so I'm leaving the state, most likely headed to Charlestown, WV.

> The tax should be collected by such entities as banks, credit card
> companies, and PayPal, and transferred to a fund that is used for
> federally funded state aid.
>
> In MD, as a business, I am required to file an annual "Sales and Use
> Tax" return, but except when I (rarely) sell parts to individuals, my
> sales and services to businesses are non-taxable (or their
> responsibility), and my purchases for business use are also non-taxable.
> Otherwise they might come under "Use Tax", if they were not incorporated
> in products and resold. It can be difficult to determine which purchases
> are subject to use tax, so in many cases I just pay the 6% tax on
> various parts even though I may not be legally required to do so. If I
> were to be audited, it would probably be found that the sales tax I have
> voluntarily paid exceeds the use tax I may be required to pay, so the MD
> Comptroller might owe me money.

I had a $100k+ development project and had to retroactively bill the
customer for the sales tax because it included a handful of proto
boards. Without the boards it was non-taxable. Or had the boards been
delivered out of state it would have been non-taxable. It was awkward
for the customer because the tax was not initially included in the
appropriation. I didn't know it was taxable until I checked with the
Comptrollers office.

One person I know who ran a restaurant and didn't remit the sales tax he
collected never got into trouble about it. They took him to court and
the judge just said, "pay the tax".

Some laws I just don't care for, but I never like overly complex laws.
Most tax laws are overly complex.

--

Rick

[P E Schoen]

"John Larkin" wrote in message
news:k6dqo85urud2b0f6r...@4ax.com...

Socialists are interested in all people (including themselves), particularly
those who are disadvantaged and unfairly treated by businesses whose
overwhelming purpose is to make money. Now that some of the excesses of the
high rollers have been limited, and some of the wrongs inflicted on the
lower and middle class have been righted, the economy is improving (despite
right-wing sabotage efforts), and most socialists and moderates are happy.

Look at the people at the Democratic National Convention, and at the
Inauguration. Lots of socialists are there, and they are smiling, laughing,
and *dancing*. They don't appear unhappy or pessimistic.

Now look at the (mostly old, white, male) faces in the RNC, or any public
appearance of Republicans anywhere. I saw, and still see, mostly frowns, and
expressions of impending gloom and doom, and wailing and gnashing of teeth
at the prospect of losing NRA support (bribes) to properly represent the
90%+ of their electorate who at least want background checks.

Paul

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 11, 8:27 pm, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com> wrote:
> "John Larkin"  wrote in message
>
> news:k6dqo85urud2b0f6r...@4ax.com...
>

> > On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:58:48 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> I've never met a happy socialist.  It's an inherently pessimistic,
> >> unhopeful theory.
> > Engineers are usually interested in things, and the world is full of cool
> > things.
> > Socialists are usually interested in themselves. No wonder they are
> > pessimistic.
>
> Socialists are interested in all people (including themselves), particularly
> those who are disadvantaged and unfairly treated by businesses whose
> overwhelming purpose is to make money.

Socialists believe everyone's disadvantaged--it's a theory of
victimhood, and that's why they're miserable. They're all victims.

Socialism, at bottom, is the theory that someone else got yours, and
someone bigger should take it all back (and more).

> Now that some of the excesses of the
> high rollers have been limited, and some of the wrongs inflicted on the
> lower and middle class have been righted,

The real median household income is down roughly 10% over Obama's
tenure, and falling faster now than in the recession. Poverty is
massive and exploding, as is the public dole, thanks to O. O,
meanwhile, throws lavish parties in DC--flying in Hollywood's A-list
for his pleasure--a man of the people. Secret parties though, lest
they offend. Nice work, if you can get it.

> the economy is improving (despite
> right-wing sabotage efforts),

Right. Obama raised taxes. That makes people hire and spend.

>and most socialists and moderates are happy.

We're creating jobs by splitting full-time occupations into multiple
29-hour jobs, because that avoids Obama's dictates. And, our 25-34
year old unemployment has surged from well below to worse than
Europe's.

So yes, there's lots for socialists to celebrate--they've accomplished
so much.

But still they're not happy. What do they really want? More.

> Look at the people at the Democratic National Convention, and at the
> Inauguration. Lots of socialists are there, and they are smiling, laughing,
> and *dancing*. They don't appear unhappy or pessimistic.

No, mesmerized.

> Now look at the (mostly old, white, male) faces in the RNC,

Race-card. Nice.

> or any public
> appearance of Republicans anywhere. I saw, and still see, mostly frowns, and
> expressions of impending gloom and doom, and wailing and gnashing of teeth
> at the prospect of losing NRA support (bribes) to properly represent the
> 90%+ of their electorate who at least want background checks.

See, there's the victim thing again. If you read what's behind it the
90% was a lie, and always was a lie. It's propaganda. The arguments
themselves were transparently lies. For example, the notion that no
one needs xxx bullets for their own defense, yet a gaggle of trained
officers fired hundreds of rounds at close range in Boston to get just
one of two bombers.

Which one of those officers would agree that he only needs seven
rounds? And what difference does it make if a law-abiding citizen has
a million? None.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[josephkk]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 09:53:40 -0700, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>
>Finally, just look at the record. Government always grows when the GOP
>is in charge. Reagan, Bush I and II. Only Clinton reduced the size of
>government.
>
I suggest that you look at the composition of the House and Senate
instead. After they write the spending legislation.

?-)

[josephkk]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 14:57:09 -0700, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>> Sales tax, instead of business taxes, makes sense. It's better if
>> people have jobs, and can buy things. And sales tax is essentially
>> optional.
>>
>>
>
>Sure. You don't have to buy groceries. You can grow your own food. Or
>you can just starve to death.
>

>As we all know, the biggest leaches are businesses. They pay very little
>tax, but place a great demand on services.

OK but answer me this: Who/what pays you to do the thing you do (inhabit
a.u.k)? Does that include any kind of benefits? The money for that has
to come from somewhere.

?-)

[dave]

For some economic theory to work there has to be an open ended supply of
"money". For other economics there must be a finite amount of cash (so
called "supply and demand" for instance). The most obvious truth is that
flawed humans control too much money; we were a better society when we
taxed billionaires at 91%.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On May 13, 10:31 am, dave <ricke...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 05/12/2013 01:56 PM, josephkk wrote:

> > On Tue, 07 May 2013 14:57:09 -0700, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:

> >> As we all know, the biggest leaches are businesses. They pay very little
> >> tax, but place a great demand on services.
>
> > OK but answer me this:  Who/what pays you to do the thing you do (inhabit
> > a.u.k)?  Does that include any kind of benefits?  The money for that has
> > to come from somewhere.
>
> > ?-)
>
> For some economic theory to work there has to be an open ended supply of
> "money". For other economics there must be a finite amount of cash (so
> called "supply and demand" for instance). The most obvious truth is that
> flawed humans control too much money; we were a better society when we
> taxed billionaires at 91%.

Taxing a $1 billion-a-year idea at 91% is the same as saying "Don't do
that. Don't innovate that, not here."

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Bill Bowden]

Well, 91% was the top marginal rate. So, if your last dollar earned
fell into the top bracket, you would only owe 91 cents more in taxes.
But in the case of earning a billion, I imagine most of the income
would fall into the highest bracket. Of course there were all sorts of
deductions in those days to evade the problem. In any event, it
wouldn't bother me much to earn a billion a year and pay the full 91%
on all of it. I would still have 90 million left over.

-Bill

> --
> Cheers,
> James Arthur

[P E Schoen]

"Bill Bowden" wrote in message
news:e8a2f390-ca60-4c34...@h9g2000pbr.googlegroups.com...

> Well, 91% was the top marginal rate. So, if your last dollar earned
> fell into the top bracket, you would only owe 91 cents more in taxes.
> But in the case of earning a billion, I imagine most of the income
> would fall into the highest bracket. Of course there were all sorts of
> deductions in those days to evade the problem. In any event, it
> wouldn't bother me much to earn a billion a year and pay the full 91%
> on all of it. I would still have 90 million left over.

It was even more oppressive in the UK, which prompted the Beatles' song "Tax
Man" which said, "There's one for you, nineteen for me".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxman

As for high income tax rates discouraging ideas and killing jobs, it should
be remembered that it applies mostly to personal wages, while other forms of
income for the very wealthy are protected by various loopholes or transfers
to foreign banks and other schemes. One big chunk of taxation for most
people is FICA, and that is limited to to 6.2% of $113,700 which is chump
change for the high rollers.
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/social-security-and-medicare-tax-rates%3B-maximum-taxable-earnings

Anyone who runs a real business (manufacturing and service - not day traders
and financial manglers), can reduce their taxes by investing in
infrastructure and R&D and hiring more workers. It's only when the top level
executives want to buy more expensive toys and wasteful displays of
conspicuous consumption, like mansions and yachts, that they may feel
disadvantaged by progressive tax rates. When your personal income exceeds
several million dollars a year, there is really no good reason to complain
about contributing, say, half of it, to the country that enables you to do
so without worry of military coups and foreign powers taking over and
"liberating" your wealth. The real heroes are people like Bill Gates and
Warren Buffet who give much of their income to major charities. Bernie
Madoff and Donald Trump and their ilk, not so much.

We should be grateful, and consider ourselves lucky, to live in a country
with as much opportunity and freedom as we have, and a government that is
of, by, and for the people, but recognize that this means the majority, or
even the 95% who do most of the real work and struggle so hard. And the
overwhelming majority, and Obama and most Democrats, are really political
centrists with rather practical and reasonable principles and demands. There
are only a few truly wacko far-left extremists, but there is a disturbing
number of far-right conservatives who pride themselves in their extremism
and unwillingness to compromise or fairly represent the people who elected
them. The popular vote in most states is closer to the 50% mark than 10% or
90%, and the senators and representatives who win by narrow margins should
recognize that most of their constituents desire a moderate stance. A 60%
approval rating is not a mandate, and elected officials should also
recognize the desire of the 40% for fair treatment and recognition. They do
not want a standoff and sabotage of the important work that needs to be
done.

Paul

[Bill Bowden]

On May 13, 10:07 pm, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com> wrote:
> "Bill Bowden"  wrote in message
>
> news:e8a2f390-ca60-4c34...@h9g2000pbr.googlegroups.com...
>

> > Well, 91% was the top marginal rate. So, if your last dollar earned
> > fell into the top bracket, you would only owe 91 cents more in taxes.
> > But in the case of earning a billion, I imagine most of the income
> > would fall into the highest bracket. Of course there were all sorts of
> > deductions in those days to evade the problem. In any event, it
> > wouldn't bother me much to earn a billion a year and pay the full 91%
> > on all of it. I would still have 90 million left over.
>

> It was even more oppressive in the UK, which prompted the Beatles' song "Tax

> Man" which said, "There's one for you, nineteen for me".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxman

>
> As for high income tax rates discouraging ideas and killing jobs, it should
> be remembered that it applies mostly to personal wages, while other forms of
> income for the very wealthy are protected by various loopholes or transfers
> to foreign banks and other schemes. One big chunk of taxation for most
> people is FICA, and that is limited to to 6.2% of $113,700 which is chump

> change for the high rollers.http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/social-secu...
>

Well, FICA may be chump change for high rollers, but it's an
attractive investment for low rollers who need the SS income. The rate
of return is something around 30% a year for small contributions. So,
you get it all back in 3 or four years. The rest is welfare.

> Anyone who runs a real business (manufacturing and service - not day traders
> and financial manglers), can reduce their taxes by investing in
> infrastructure and R&D and hiring more workers. It's only when the top level
> executives want to buy more expensive toys and wasteful displays of
> conspicuous consumption, like mansions and yachts, that they may feel
> disadvantaged by progressive tax rates. When your personal income exceeds
> several million dollars a year, there is really no good reason to complain
> about contributing, say, half of it, to the country that enables you to do
> so without worry of military coups and foreign powers taking over and
> "liberating" your wealth. The real heroes are people like Bill Gates and
> Warren Buffet who give much of their income to major charities. Bernie
> Madoff and Donald Trump and their ilk, not so much.
>

Gates and Buffet probably decided it's better to give money away than
let the government confiscate it. I imagine both of them use the tax
code to reduce their personal liability.

> We should be grateful, and consider ourselves lucky, to live in a country
> with as much opportunity and freedom as we have, and a government that is
> of, by, and for the people, but recognize that this means the majority, or
> even the 95% who do most of the real work and struggle so hard. And the
> overwhelming majority, and Obama and most Democrats, are really political
> centrists with rather practical and reasonable principles and demands. There
> are only a few truly wacko far-left extremists, but there is a disturbing
> number of far-right conservatives who pride themselves in their extremism
> and unwillingness to compromise or fairly represent the people who elected
> them. The popular vote in most states is closer to the 50% mark than 10% or
> 90%, and the senators and representatives who win by narrow margins should
> recognize that most of their constituents desire a moderate stance. A 60%
> approval rating is not a mandate, and elected officials should also
> recognize the desire of the 40% for fair treatment and recognition. They do
> not want a standoff and sabotage of the important work that needs to be
> done.
>

I have mixed feelings about it. It would seem we are headed for
financial disaster with a 16 trillion debt and 1 trillion deficit, but
the market has made new records with the DJIA now over 15,000 while
gold has fallen 20%. It seems like an optimist environment at the
moment. How long will it last?

-Bill