Megadragon15
Member
This is about as fair as putting a postal surcharge on e-mail.
Democrats push for taxing internet sales
- Thread starter Captain Sparrow
- Start date
- Status
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Honestly, I don't see this passing at all, so everyone should stop getting their panties in a bunch.
Captain Sparrow
Banned
Gatekeeper said:
Don't let companies like Amazon feed you the BS that you simply cannot handle this. Do you manually calculate shipping costs? Do you manually accept credit card payments? There are companies that have developed this kind of software.
Fuzzery said:shipping is basically already like an internet tax
You do realize that you're already paying for shipping when you buy from a B&M retailer, right? The product doesn't teleport to shelves. There are warehouses, truck drivers, inventory employees, etc. It's already built into the price.
bggrthnjsus said:
Few would. If they had been doing this all along, would the internet really be a giant boycott like everyone claims it will be? I really believe everyone that says people will stop buying goods (completely) if this happens. :lol
gcubed said:
I don't get the competitive pricing thing comment either.
However, regarding the driving of more sales to B&M, I have my share of concerns about that. The very nature of the tax-free low-priced e-tail environment has spurred a lot of extraneous shopping over the years that's often want and not need based. I think there's going to be a sizable drop off of overall demand before you see any considerable shift of sales from the internet to B&M.
It certainly will spur tax revenue, but I have to wonder how much real gains B&M retailers will see from this, particularly smaller retailers.
Monroeski said:If there was an internet tax in place right now, GAF would have completely eradicated the national debt during the Summer and Holiday Steam sales.
I feel we should go back to the pirating thread we had and see if the same people who were arguing for piracy (or that it wasn't stealing because it is a digital item) are some of the same people arguing for a tax here.
But yeah, those Sales are brutal. Discipline!
Chaplain
Member
Off topic but a topic that is still about taxes:
http://www.atr.org/sixmonths.html?content=5171##ixzz0sufQOAwQ
More tax info at link.
http://www.atr.org/sixmonths.html?content=5171##ixzz0sufQOAwQ
More tax info at link.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Not only do i hope this goes through i hope it applies to digital goods as well. They should also make it two or three times as high for the next ten years to make up for people evading taxes.
silentspork
Member
scorcho said:
Yea I don't understand it. It's a loophole, one which costs local businesses and local governments sizable amounts of revenue. It costs my fathers business money (thankfully his store is multi-purpose), and while it saves me money on an individual level it isn't at all good for him or his employees.
Sorry if you can't get your stuff tax free anymore, but I'm sure only retailer pricing will be competitive with B&M regardless. Even if this goes through I'll still be ordering all my games from Amazon, saves me time and money driving to the store and they'll still be a few bucks cheaper.
MoxManiac said:
Game Analyst is a conservative troll shilling for the continuation of Bush's infamously tax cuts from earlier in the decade with dubious sources (you know, those cuts for rich people that helped propel our debt to astronomical levels near the outset? Yes, those). He's not to be taken seriously.
Game Analyst said:
The Bush tax cuts.
This shouldn't really come as a surprise. Democrats have said all along that they plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire.
What may come as a surprise to most people is that these tax cuts were not just "for the rich" as Democrats have characterized them in their talking points for years. A lot of Americans and small businesses will be getting tax increases next year.
The only way this doesn't happen is if Republicans get control of Congress this fall and that's not very likely to happen.
MoxManiac said:
It's a Grover Norquist institution. And in case you don't know who that is, he's a fanatical anti-tax, anti-government far right zealot of the type you would find in the depths of the Tea Party movement (albeit richer and more knowledgeable of politics since he's been financing the establishment on the Right for three decades or so).
His source is the equivalent of me linking to a Jack Thomspon website showing clear studies of how violent video games increases acts of aggression by 62% and first degree murders by teenagers by 13%. There's so much crap laying on top of the actual relevant facts he's spinning, that it makes the depths of BP oil spill look positively shallow in comparison.
EDIT: The administration is not tone deaf to the needs of small business and has made numerous attempts to alleviate their burden; we saw that in the stimulus bill, the health care bill, and so on. If the expiration of the Bush tax cuts provide an undue burden on small business, exemptions can be made as necessary, especially given the fragile economy. It's nonsense to suggest that only Republicans will do so; if anything, it'll be Republicans in the Senate who would likely hold up any such bill, since we can't have the administration and Congress get anything done that may have political positive ramifications ahead of the election.
ToyMachine228
Member
Really, it's just been a matter of time until internet sales get taxed. Why should they not be taxed like any other sale? There's no real argument for internet sales not being taxed. You can argue that no sale of any kind should be taxed if you want, but it doesn't really make a lot of sense for internet sales to be excluded. Does it suck? Yes. But does it make sense? Yes.
Forget this. We wouldn't have to be worrying about schools, police, and firefighters if local and state governments would properly finance those immediate areas at the top of their budgets with the money they already have. Everything else on their budget should be secondary and they should evaluate spending less on those programs. They keep using this excuse that they don't have enough money for schools, police, and firefighters just to get more money out of people. Total BS.
Take California for example. There is a $20 billion deficit in the state budget. That seems like a lot of money. However, the estimated revenues the state is bringing in is around $88.1 billion, give or take a few billion. Don't tell me a state can't provide immediate, important services with that amount of money.
Take California for example. There is a $20 billion deficit in the state budget. That seems like a lot of money. However, the estimated revenues the state is bringing in is around $88.1 billion, give or take a few billion. Don't tell me a state can't provide immediate, important services with that amount of money.
Let me just say when I see the Welfare People walking through Newark, there's no effing way I think they should get a couple bucks out of everything I buy from Amazon. Pretty much all that needs to be said right there. If more people got real jobs instead of living off the state or "working" for government we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Game Analyst said:
Dude I am not even American and I know some of that info is not only misleading, it's incorrect.
For example, with the 55% taxation on estates over a million, you're only taxing everything over a million, so if your estate is worth exactly 1million, you're not getting taxed. If it's worth 1.1 million, you're getting taxt on 100k.
Macam said:
This is straight from Kiplinger...
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/tax_hikes_coming_in_2011_090424.html
The main problem with the other link was that some of the increases only apply to people in upper income brackets. Certainly some differences from the previous link, but still a lot of BS.
Game Analyst said:
these two things don't go together. I'd point you over to the gulf oil spill thread for "lets post bullshit news"
Javaman said:
so basically it is exactly what has been stated for two years. If you make over 250k a year, when the Bush tax cuts expire, you will be hit
weekend_warrior
Banned
In NY we already pay sales tax on internet purchases. :|
Macam said:
Everything he posted was factual.
Here's a link to the actual bill if you'd like to read it.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h2enr.txt.pdf
bill0527 said:
The Democrats are not going to let all of the cuts expire and are even going to make the ones they don't like more generous (like the Estate tax) than before the cuts. Further a Republican controlled Congress is not going to be able to hold onto all the cuts. If anything has been showbn this past year is that the minority party in Congress is still able to hold things up and block things quite effectively.
On topic, internet sales should be taxed.
The Librarian
Banned
MoxManiac said:
HOLY SHIT EVERYBODY PANIC 40% TAX RATE OH MY GAWD BAILOUT BAILOUT
ClosingADoor
Member
AstroLad said:
Something something no jobs... something something economy...
Do you think most of the people on welfare at the moment WANT to be on welfare? Of course not, but where are they going to find a job?
There are always people cheating the system, but to just say "I see some people on welfare here, so EVERYONE must be a lazy bastard" is just plain ignorant.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I love the idea that repealing the largest gift to the wealthiest Americans in history is somehow a bad idea--which is exactly what they intended when they ran up deficits on increased Medicare spending and two unfunded wars. The strategy is called "starve the beast," and it fucking works.
I just wish conservatives could think past their own nose for a minute and consider more than their wealthy forbears that they think need propping up.
I just wish conservatives could think past their own nose for a minute and consider more than their wealthy forbears that they think need propping up.
bill0527 said:
we are on the same page. most of the things that will affect people below the 250k threshold will be extended, as has been said for the last 2 years. Just because, at this very moment in time, thats what is going to expire doesn't mean that's whats going to happen next year
Game Analyst said:
1. Norquist is not one of those people.
2. Nor is Drudge. Quite the opposite on both counts.
3. Perhaps it was undue (so, sorry if it's any consolation), but there certainly was a reason behind it. You certainly don't do yourself any favors by reposting tripe from some purely ideologically, biased sources in various threads. I stand by my original points nonetheless.
And this incessant chatter about government inefficiencies and budget problems is more of a side issue than anything; it's a closing a freaking loophole on standard sales tax. It streamlines the tax code a hair and makes competition a bit more level for retail in general. Hell, while sales taxes are regressive in general, this one may actually be the least regressive of sales taxes given the nuances of computer ownership, Internet access, and credit access.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Zero Hero said:
It was only ever banned in ONE PoliGAF thread, if I remember correctly.
prodystopian
Member
This thread reminds me how brilliant of a strategy a 'temporary' tax decrease was.
Then: We are dropping the rates just for a bit.
Now: THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR MONEY.
Then: We are dropping the rates just for a bit.
Now: THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR MONEY.
LosDaddie said:
Yeah, I'm loving everyone in the thread saying how "unfair" this is. These are the same debates people made during the heyday of music-sharing services. Just because everyone else is breaking the law doesn't make it right, and the government needs to find some way to fill in for all the lost revenue.
Peronthious
Member
Game Analyst said:
We uh.
Had a thread on this.
Taxes going back to normal != tax hike
Estate tax != death tax
etc.
You want to protect US citizens? Let's cut spending and/or increase taxes so we're actually paying for the services/goods the government provides us. And if we cut spending, don't even think of making your priorities for cuts be in education, veterans benefits and services, training, employment, and social services: Combined, they don't even make up 10% of our budget.Game Analyst said:
If you really want to cut spending, you're going to need to touch social security, medicare/medicaid, and the DoD + Department of Homeland Security, which, combined with the interest on the nation debt, account for more than two thirds of the federal budget.
Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid costs i nparticular have been outpacing economic growth for a while now. Simple changes for the three programs:
#1: Remove the social security wage base, making all income taxable for social security. As it currently stands, there are two brackets for social security: Income under the social security wage base (about $106,000 last year), and income over the social security wage base. The first bracket has a higher marginal rate than the second bracket. That means everyone who made more than $106,000 last year had a lower tax rate than everyone who made less than $106,000. If we removed the social security wage base and had a flat tax for social security, like medicare/medicaid, over 95% of the insolvency problems the social security fund is facing (due to the large population of the baby boomer generation) will be funded for. and unless you make more than $106,000 , it wouldn't affect your taxes at all.
#2: Health care reform: We already got this done: The cost curve should be significantly flatter over the next few decades, allowing for the economy to (hopefully) outpace health care costs in growth. Further reforms can be made (like single payer) to reduce costs even further.
#3: The US has, by far, military supremacy among all countries. And all but one or two of the next 15 or so largest powers are our allies. We could reduce the military budget by 33-50% without worry. And refocus our efforts on small operations against guerrila fighters rather than large scale military standoffs with nations (further reducing costs).
Furthermore, we can close some tax loopholes (~$200B in lost revenue per year, IIRC), let the bush tax cuts expire, and, yes, increase taxes, even if it were only to the levels under clinton or Reagan (~1-2% change for the average household iirc)
You're looking at trillions of dollars of savings here, and note that outside of refactoring and shrinking the military industrial complex, none of it involves reducing benefits or services to the people. It's almost all administrative changes.
ClosingADoor
Member
GaimeGuy said:
Wait, what? How does that make any sense? Shouldn't the tax rate go up when you earn more money, or just have a flat tax rate? Crazy Americans.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked