Democrats push for taxing internet sales
- Thread starter Captain Sparrow
- Start date
- Status
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
i understand that they found a better business model. However, i dont see how anyone can deny that there was damage done by the change. If this was the only business to have this happen to, the rest of the economy could absorb it. When its happening at the scope and rate it has been, collapse has to come in somewhere.Gatekeeper said:
Seems to be the trend for the last 10 years or so.
SuicideUZI
Member
yeah lets take more money out of American's wallets so the government can waste it on more useless things
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
If you have knowledge of where the 7+ million people that lost their job since 2008 can find new ones im 100% certain the White House would take your call.SlipperySlope said:
perfectchaos007
Member
I figured a lot of you would be "for" this given the Democrat in the title. smh
Because your idea that everybody in society can be a great-thinking, from-the-garage entrepreneur simply isn't in line with reality. You seem to suggest that people who fall short of your ideal are somehow worthless or aren't trying hard enough.JesseZao said:
Try meeting and getting to know some people outside your immediate bubble to see how the world really works.
The Faceless Master
Member
he can always commit a crime and get 3 squares in jail...loosus said:
SlipperySlope
Banned
loosus said:
water_wendi said:
Both of you just ran into a fallacy. Do either of you really think this through?
The obsolescence of factory jobs, and the recession, are two different things. Factory jobs have been disappearing for a very, very long time.
It's unfortunate that right now we're in a recession. When the economy stabilizes, they'll find work.
Oh, and only a fraction of the jobs lost in the recession were because of factory job obsolescence. You're taking one thing, factory job obsolescence, and putting the recession job loss figure in there. Huge fallacy. Why did you do that?
The Faceless Master
Member
yeah, dozens of people could be employed to fill the role of one cement mixing truck!Slavik81 said:
This is the sort of out-of-touch bullshit I'm talking about.JesseZao said:
I am not "putting limits" on my friend. He's my fucking friend, so I know what his mind is like. I generally have an idea of the types of things he can do and not do. Over the course of years, you figure this out about some people.
I am thankful that he has the employment that he has.
Maintain the robots? Hello? Did you not read anything I said about this guy? He cannot do things like that. And cleaning a cleaning robot? What the fuck?
You have apparently been raised in feel-good academia for too long. Like I said, get to know some other people and start being realistic.
Gatekeeper
Member
water_wendi said:
I'm not denying there was damage done. I simply believe many of these industries and companies need to adapt better. I also believe the majority of these collapsing businesses are the victims of poor management and out and out greed.
A lot of the jobs loss were actually in the service sectors that you seem to put on a pedestal.SlipperySlope said:
I look forward to all these service jobs that you can't seem to name or even give us a general idea about coming to save us in the coming years. After all, not only will these jobs be available, but everybody will be able to do them.
:lol Figures.JesseZao said:
SlipperySlope
Banned
loosus said:
And what about those poor farm workers in the 1800's/early 1900's that lost their jobs? They'll never be able to do another job!
SlipperySlope
Banned
loosus said:
You're mixing job obsolescence, and the recession, again. Stop falling into that trap.
Let's stay focused on one thing. Obsolescence, or the recession.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
You said there were service jobs out there and i was asking where the people that just got laid off from these service jobs can find new ones.SlipperySlope said:
To think that stuff is going to get back to what was once normal is fantasy. Those jobs are gone forever and will not come back. The unemployment and underemployment we have is not going away.
Thats great but i didnt mention factory jobs.. i was asking where all these service jobs are? And the recession figures are intertwined with everything we've been discussing. This is real world, not a snow globe simulation. The recession, corporate downsizing, the massive outsourcing, the shift to online space instead of physical overhead, the drop in tax streams, local governments going bankrupt.. all of this is connected.
SlipperySlope
Banned
loosus said:
And you do it again.
I'll take your fallacy and turn it around. What will those farmers in the Great Depression do now that they've lost their job? Won't anyone think of the poor farmer? There's nothing else available, after all!
I hope I'm getting through. See the fallacy yet?
Do I need to, like, get pieces of a puzzle out to illustrate this? These two things are intertwined. It's not a coincidence that, when you have no jobs because there is almost literally nothing to do, you have a recession.SlipperySlope said:
Did you not read my post or what?SlipperySlope said:
Again: when farmers were "losing their jobs," factory jobs were available. They were there. They could go to them. In fact, part of the reason they were losing jobs was that machinery became readily available -- machinery that just so happened to also be used in factory jobs. So rather than a decrease, there was actually a net gain.
So again, I will ask: what is the equivalent today? Where will factory/retail workers go? This is not a rhetorical question; I'm asking you.
loosus said:
You act like there is some blanket answer to this. Our world is more complex now than everybody is a farmer or tavern/general store owner. Do you still think every worker that used to be employed by Circuit City is still unemployed? Does every 14-16 year old enter unemployment or are they able to find an entry level job if they want one?
SlipperySlope
Banned
water_wendi said:
I read through some of your other posts in this thread, and it seems that by service jobs, you're talking about retail. In that case, those service jobs are being replaced by better and higher paid service jobs. Many things fall under "service jobs". When the recession ends, the service sector will expand for the new economy. Perhaps not as much in the low paying shit jobs, but in the higher paying better jobs. And this isn't a bad thing. Like farmers going to factories in the past, low wage earners will be forced to learn something new and make more money.
SlipperySlope
Banned
loosus said:
I like how you only quoted part of my post. Here, I'll quote the rest.
Rest of my post said:
Anyway, I need sleep. I'm out.
Yeah, I waited this long for a few examples of the service jobs that the former factory-job workers will be going to, so I guess I should've known by now that it was going to be a fruitless endeavorer since they don't fucking exist. Oh well!SlipperySlope said:
A job is a job. If there were still money to pay them, then I say good on them.JesseZao said:
Of course, in your world, everybody and their mom runs a Netflix and Twitter clone and makes a ton of cash doing it, so I guess we don't need those pesky labor jobs.
jamesinclair
Banned
SlipperySlope said:
1) What new jobs?
As others have pointed out, blockbuster became redbox. 8 employees became 1 guy refilling the machine every few days.
Supermarket checkout went from 10 employees to 1 walking around and making sure the checkout machines are doing well.
20 employees walking around circuit city asking "may I help you?" became amazon.com giving you "other products you may be interested in"
Dont bother to point out the behind the scenes people, they remain constant, that hasnt grown. Amazon has people minding the servers, year, so did circuit city.
This will continue to happen. 7-11? In France, I saw a robot convenience store. Everything a 7-11 sells, you push a button, slide your credit card, and out comes your soda, toilet paper, bug spray, condoms etc. 2 employees became 0.
You keep saying "fallacy fallacy fallacy" but have added nothing.
Once mcdonalds figures out a way to flip burgers and make fries without cooks, what do you think will happen?
2) "low wage earners will be forced to learn something new and make more money"
And this clearly describes why you're so lost. If they lose their job, they can go back to college right? Except they dropped out of high school when they were 16. They havent traveled further from town than the lake that's 90 minutes away. They work 44 hours a week and are raising two kids. When they get fired, when exactly are they going to find the time and money to "learn something new and make more money".
Why do people work minimum wage jobs now if it's so easy to "learn something new and make more money." Why is carlos mopping the floor at 3am if he could "learn something new and make more money"?
Not to mention the "JUST GO BACK TO COLLEGE!!!!!!!!!" argument falls flat when you consider that, generally, you want to have a job to actually go back to at the end of your college career.
And believe it or not, not everybody can be a medical doctor or materials engineer, even if those jobs are available.
And believe it or not, not everybody can be a medical doctor or materials engineer, even if those jobs are available.
Marty Chinn
Member
I can understand people being against this. Heck, I'm against this. But, I'm against it for selfish reasons. I know deep down that this is needed, but I enjoy the money I save.
Basically, it breaks down to this:
1) I moved a majority of my purchases to online companies like Amazon which means all the goods I buy that I would have paid tax on, my state loses out on now because I've shifted from local to online purchases.
2) States and cities budget based on expected revenue based on past history. It's based off projections and I have to assume in those projections are the spending habits of the people who live in that state which generates sales tax that the budget accounts for.
3) People still are using all the services that the city and state supply but now aren't paying for them because they've shifted their purchasing power to online stores which results in the sales tax not heading towards paying for the services they use.
I can't be the only one who has suddenly removed a significant money going to the state because I decided to save money through online purchases yet still benefit from local services.
I understand people not wanting to pay more, but I can't see how people are blind to not understand how that shift is affecting everything else in the bigger picture.
Basically, it breaks down to this:
1) I moved a majority of my purchases to online companies like Amazon which means all the goods I buy that I would have paid tax on, my state loses out on now because I've shifted from local to online purchases.
2) States and cities budget based on expected revenue based on past history. It's based off projections and I have to assume in those projections are the spending habits of the people who live in that state which generates sales tax that the budget accounts for.
3) People still are using all the services that the city and state supply but now aren't paying for them because they've shifted their purchasing power to online stores which results in the sales tax not heading towards paying for the services they use.
I can't be the only one who has suddenly removed a significant money going to the state because I decided to save money through online purchases yet still benefit from local services.
I understand people not wanting to pay more, but I can't see how people are blind to not understand how that shift is affecting everything else in the bigger picture.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
i wouldnt even be surprised if there was a net loss there because you had hundreds of stores that need IT support in addition to the website. Every IT person i know (i knew dozens because our store catered to them and resellers) is out of work. There is not a single one that is still working IT. Everything was downsized and instead of 20 IT guys working at a casino there are now 3. i knew people with their own business with multiple storefronts that now work at Toys r Us or Dillards (well before Dillards closed that is.. havent spoken with that customer since 2009).jamesinclair said:
SlipperySlope
Banned
loosus said:
Alright. Last post.
We're in a recession. What in the hell do you expect? A grand utopia overnight? It'll take time to get out of the recession.
Job obsolescence has been going on for hundreds of years. Part of it has been during recessions. Part of it not.
This same stuff was going on in the 90's boom. As well as the '00 boom.
The same stuff happened during the 80's boom.
And guess what? It happened during the recessions too.
And before you go there, the productivity gains did not cause the recession.
It's progress. You can't stop it. If it ever stopped, then the world would suck. I like being able to buy more things over time. You apparently don't.
Gatekeeper
Member
Marty: As long as you admit the money you are saving is being saved as an evasion of taxes. If your state has a sales tax, its very likely you are required to pay use tax on anything you bought from Amazon. You just chose not to.
Corporate power leads to plutocracy leads to economic and eventually social darwinism as people imbibe the corporatist/globalist rhetoric and convince themselves that one simply needs to be smarter, work harder, and be more willing to make sacrifices and employment and a general good standard of living will be theirs.
This unfortunately ignores many social realities, including the normal distribution of intelligence/aptitude; the enormous concentration of wealth/resources and hence opportunity in the very upper segment of society; the lack of checks and balances on corporate influence due to a corrupt political system; and the fact that, for many people, uprooting themselves and moving to other states/nations is not a viable option (i.e., it deprives them of the myriad benefits of family, both economically and socially; this is especially a concern for the lower classes).
In short: people like to delude themselves. It must be nice and all to be a person of substantial familial wealth with all the advantages that brings, or to be an intelligent, capable person who can accomplish anything you set your mind to. Unfortunately, that is not and will never be the reality for a vast portion of the populace. Reasoning from such bases is thus disingenuous at best, and incredibly self-centered, shallow, and nearsighted at worst. Continuing to espouse foolish doctrine about self-empowerment while ignoring the economic and social realities of the day ultimately makes one an economic and social Darwinist, which is imo the lowest and least enlightened kind of human being.
This unfortunately ignores many social realities, including the normal distribution of intelligence/aptitude; the enormous concentration of wealth/resources and hence opportunity in the very upper segment of society; the lack of checks and balances on corporate influence due to a corrupt political system; and the fact that, for many people, uprooting themselves and moving to other states/nations is not a viable option (i.e., it deprives them of the myriad benefits of family, both economically and socially; this is especially a concern for the lower classes).
In short: people like to delude themselves. It must be nice and all to be a person of substantial familial wealth with all the advantages that brings, or to be an intelligent, capable person who can accomplish anything you set your mind to. Unfortunately, that is not and will never be the reality for a vast portion of the populace. Reasoning from such bases is thus disingenuous at best, and incredibly self-centered, shallow, and nearsighted at worst. Continuing to espouse foolish doctrine about self-empowerment while ignoring the economic and social realities of the day ultimately makes one an economic and social Darwinist, which is imo the lowest and least enlightened kind of human being.
Loki said:
So people have to accept the fact that they to take care of the less productive, capable, parasitic members of society who are already a strain on our wallets? Nonsense. At some point social welfare will become too much for the people and there will be a furious backlash. Social darwinism fear be damned.
That's what we moved away from. I doubt we would ever return to something that we deemed awful before. Axially,i take that back,a lot of the more insane conservatives pretend that we haven't tried free market capitalism before and try to steer us back to it again.Ripclawe said:
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
:lol Holy shit. Well, its going to be a worldwide case of you reap what you sow coming up fast for all the "productive, capable, non-parasitic" members of society.Ripclawe said:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Screw internet taxes. No physical presence? No taxation. This would make my overall spending on certain products go down, rather than up. Instead of buying a luxury item online because it was less than retail, I probably won't even bother at all. That don't stimulate the economy much. I do most of my shopping retail - food, clothes, household amenities, furniture, etc. I can't buy specialty/luxury goods retail anyway, because they don't carry most of them.
Besides, during the good economic times of yesteryear, our state governments decided to increase their budgets off of the freeflowing tax revenue. Now that we've hit some hard times, they just want more ways to grab money instead of cutting the fat off of their budget like the rest of us had to endure with layoffs and salary cuts.
Learn to budget first, and make sure funds actually go towards critical infrastructure upkeep, engineers, technicians, police, firefighters, and directly to teachers, rather than towards more schmucks with do-nothing office jobs.
Besides, during the good economic times of yesteryear, our state governments decided to increase their budgets off of the freeflowing tax revenue. Now that we've hit some hard times, they just want more ways to grab money instead of cutting the fat off of their budget like the rest of us had to endure with layoffs and salary cuts.
Learn to budget first, and make sure funds actually go towards critical infrastructure upkeep, engineers, technicians, police, firefighters, and directly to teachers, rather than towards more schmucks with do-nothing office jobs.
Ripclawe said:
Nonsense. There's a balance to be had; welfare programs can be tied to work, people can be taught skills, transitioned into jobs etc. The problem now is the scarcity of jobs -- particularly blue collar/manufacturing/low-skilled jobs -- to begin with. And that's a direct result of economic policy that caters to the super-rich and corporate elites. The government, which is ideally supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people (as opposed to of, by, and for the corporations), has completely abandoned its responsibility to its constituents.
I really don't think that people think things through when espousing social Darwinism. Almost invariably, its proponents are neither as intelligent, charismatic, industrious, strong, nor otherwise genetically fit as they seem to imagine themselves. I find it amusing, actually.
Diatribe1974
Member
Should read:
I'm glad the republicans & democrats are pushing for bullshit like this. It helps foster growth in non-Republican & Democrat camps like crazy. Personally, I'm stockpiling torches & pitchforks and biding my time.
I'm glad the republicans & democrats are pushing for bullshit like this. It helps foster growth in non-Republican & Democrat camps like crazy. Personally, I'm stockpiling torches & pitchforks and biding my time.
of course GAF is going to hate this, because the majority never leave there house. I have no idea how this can be seen as a "new" tax... and how its a slippery slope. There is a sales tax when you buy things... except for most states when you are on the internet. It's just closing a loophole that everyone has been happily exploiting for the last x amt of years.
Virtua Ben
Member
McLovin said:
BINGO.
harSon said:
Do you honestly think that state and local governments can't cut out huge amounts of waste before they hit vital services?
This is the game they play. They don't want to say that they'll have to close the dog parks, shut the lights off early at the baseball fields, close the library on the weekends, reduce the length of the state fair, etc because no one would give a shit.
Instead the first thing they throw on the chopping block is education, fire, and police because that's what gets people up in arms.
Even still, there's massive waste in those areas anyway. My school district maintains a large recruiting department despite the fact that they've been cutting staff for years. Why? Because the district needs to maintain that dept to keep their "Schools of Distinction" credentials or some other such horseshit.
Canadian Psycho
Banned
Fall of the republic.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked