Texsox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 07:20 PM) The trade off is jobs. City's make that decision all of the time by subsidizing businesses to come to their communities. Interest free loans, property tax breaks, incentives... I don't see sales taxes as any different. If states are willing to forfeit them in the pursuit of attracting jobs, it is their right. Would you allow a brick and mortar store to operate as a sales tax free zone? After all that actually adds jobs in the community, not at a service center and warehouse many states away. Currently if Amazon happened to be an Illinois company, with a warehouse in Illinois or service center Illinois, residents wold have to pay sales tax on items bought there. Offer an incentive for getting that part of their operation. The affiliates are often times part time sellers with hobby businesses, not full time, businesses employing a lot of people. States understand what is at stake as well and will eventually push for a share of on-line sales taxes. They have to with so many sales heading in that direction.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 07:18 PM) I see what you said. But the problem remains that even changing the current system only works if every (or a vast majority) of states also pass it. The problem is, for states begging for business/jobs, this effectively incentivized them to NOT enact such a law. They'd rather have the jobs, businesses and people than the sales tax...the prior 3 combined easily pay more in taxes than that one sales tax will ever bring in. Maybe you guys can't grasp what I'm saying because I'm saying it wrong...I don't know anymore. I really dont have another way to put this. Imagine if a state told WalMart, open new stores in our state and we will make your sales tax free to our residents. After all, we need the jobs in this state. It's the same as allowing Amazon to operate tax free in the state. The problem is technology has jumped ahead of existing laws. Now the laws need to catch up. I think we found the disagreement. Using Amazon as the example, most of their jobs are out of state. Ten years ago, less than 1% of consumer spending was on-line. Not a big deal. In 2006 is was around 6%. Today estimates are at least 15%. It is starting to get serious. I could easily see when half or more of taxable consumer spending will be on line with companies out of state. Addressing your concern, those out of state companies offer no jobs, businesses, or people to where they are shipping. Amazon is willing to cut their affiliates to protect their main business. That tells me their main business is far more lucrative than their affiliate business. In California they were willing to cut 10,000 affiliates to protect what states are really after, the sales tax on everything Amazon ships into their state. Put another way, having 25% of consumer sales on-line is about the same as cutting Illinois state sales tax to 4.75%. That revenue has to be made up somewhere. It seems to me that the fairest way to make up that difference isn't to create a new tax or fee, but to continue to recover the same tax, only this time to find a way to collect from the people that are selling to your state. As always, technology has leaped ahead of the law and now the law has to catch up.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 07:09 PM) This shows you don't understand how amazon works. If you buy something from amazon out of Indiana, they ship it from another state, not from your own state...so you don't get taxed. However the affiliates in Indiana ship to other states. Duh, that's what I'm saying. If you continue to allow on-line retailers to ship tax free into your state, you will keep losing sales tax revenues. Ten years ago on-line sales were less than 1%, now they are 15%, where will they be in 5 years? Under the current system, states will continue to see revenues from sales tax to fall as more people shop on-line. What should they do to maintain that revenue stream? The law was to establish that Amazon would pay on all their sales, not just through the affiliates. Just like you have to pay sales tax on internet orders from companies located in the same state as the customer. The law claims that Amazon is in Illinois.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 07:03 PM) The point remains, IL gained nothing. Amazon simply doesn't sell out of IL affiliates anymore...this hurts the affiliates...it didnt hurt amazon. Amazon can ship the same merchandise out of an Indiana affiliate now, still tax free. Indiana has little incentive to pass such a tax. Indiana has the sales tax on *everything* that Amazon sells in Indiana to gain.Again how many companies will you allow to be in your state without paying taxes? To keep people from buying on-line, why not eliminate sales tax? States have nothing to gain by charging sales tax.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 06:48 PM) Amazon replaces those affiliates without even trying...and amazon pays the affiliates to be part of their program, amazon can ship the same products from another affiliate just as easily. If it affected amazon more than the tax did, they wouldn't be so quick to just jettison them all...yet thats exactly what they did. Look up the amazon affiliate program and you'll get a better idea how it works. How much should states give up in sales tax to keep Amazon's program going? When on-line sales equal 50% of total consumer spending, should states look elsewhere to replace that income? Where?

It's not the taxes from the affiliate program, it's taxes on everything Amazon sells, that's the pot o' gold states are looking at. The current set up encourages companies to sell outside the state they are from. Some will argue that a law needed to be put in place when on-line sales were less than 1% of total consumer spending. Maybe in 2006, when total consumer spending on-line was 6%, the law should have been in place. But the states waited. Not that on-line sales are almost 15% of total consumer spending, and state revenues are down, they are writing laws. Seems like a prudent time to start.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 05:24 PM) YOU MISS THE f***ING POINT...AGAIN. Seriously already...you continue to miss the point, whether out of purposeful ignorance or outright ignorance. Unless every state passes it, it doesn't affect Amazon...therefore, IT WILL NEVER *EVER* GET PASSED BY EVERY STATE, BECAUSE THEY REALIZE IT'S ADVANTAGOUS TO NOT PASS IT. If this isn't done federally...IT WILL NOT f***ING WORK. It's pretty obvious by now you don't understand how business works, but thanks for trying. You refuse to apply reality/logic to this law. They've accidentally created a law that allows neighboring states to give businesses incentive to do business in their state, instead of the state trying to tax them. This means that some states will NEVER pass such a law...as it's advantageous to them to NOT pass it. Dropping affiliates doesn't affect Amazon? I thought Amazon makes money on those transactions. Perhaps you are forgetting that business works to make a profit. Are they just doing it as a charity? What advantage is there to the state to require it's local businesses to charge sales tax, but allow others not to? Hey Illinois customers, buy from an Illinois business who has a store in your neighborhood AND PAY SALES TAX! Buy from an out of state company and don't pay sales tax! BRILLIANT TAX POLICY! So why should Amazon move to Illinois? They benefit under the old system by selling to Illinois customers from out of state. If Amazon doesn't give a s*** about losing 10,000 affiliates, it must mean they do not sell that much through them.

It doesn't seem silly to be consistent with your calls. As long as players know what to expect, it should be all good.

When you are travelling and take it with you, you probably paid their state sales tax. As long as it is equal to, or less than Illinois, no additional tax is required. Plus, Illinois state sales tax is only 6.25%, most places will be equal to or greater with their state and local taxes added. Now if you buy something over the internet or mail order, they will not charge you either local or your state tax, so you would be responsible for the Illinois use tax. So I wonder why, if the law is from 1955, why Illinois needed a new law for internet sales. Wait, unless it is because they are requiring the seller to collect and reimburse.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 12:50 PM) But these ones are easily replaced. The H1b program people are not. Actually they are not easily replaced. The ag industry is really hurting. Many H1B workers could be replaced by unemployed domestic workers. Those are the jobs that our college and high school grads should be fighting for, not the $7/hr field jobs.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 07:44 AM) The H1B program is distinct from the low-income workers because, first and foremost, it brings in educated, in-demand workers, ones who other companies would be interested in employing. These guest worker programs are also bringing in in-demand workers, ones who other companies would be interested in employing.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 12:22 PM) Yes. Welcome to the USA, AKA the World Police Department. It's been like this for a long time now...did you think your pal Obama was gonna play the game differently or something? Will we always pick the rebels or can we sometimes pick the current governments?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) And of course most Arab countries are going to be flighty about their support in this. Most of them are no better than Gaddafi, they now realize that they are next on the list and maybe they should have supported Gaddafi killing his citizens instead of siding with the west and giving the people freedom. To late now, Middle Eastern Arabs are getting to taste freedom and many of them will realize that they have the power to free themselves. What makes anyone believe that they will have freedom, or that the next regime will allow citizens to be free?

A little more.

http://www.themonitor.com/news/farm-48231-patch-gap.html more at the link . . .

People and things getting blown up.

Hi guys. I just noticed posters jumped from 2 to 12. I guess the news got out. f***

I agree with the course, don't agree with where it led to.

There are all sorts of temporary worker programs that are not anything like indentured servant. The H1B visa program for example.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 20, 2011 -> 12:53 PM) Im not unhappy with it, it doesn't affect me. However, what you said holds no water...because if this law was in place BEFORE these businesses were built up and created 10 years ago before e-commerce was an everyday reality, these businesses wouldn't be threatening to leave or leaving (or closing shop because Amazon has now abandoned them). So There should have been a law in place *before* those businesses started? How the hell do you create a law for a business that wasn't even a reality?

Will we stretch our own resources to the [point where they cannot respond to a threat to the US? How many different countries shall we go into until we are bankrupt and unable to defend ourselves? At least some Russian President can come to the border and tell some US President to teat down a wall lol

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 17, 2011 -> 09:30 PM) Voluntarily. I would think they would actually like that to be in the news. Voluntarily, as in hoping that will satisfy everyone.

If there wasn't a chance, why was anyone close enough to foul? The problem, IMHO, is different refs call it different and some defensive players will take advantage of the belief that a foul should not be called. If every ref called it, then the defensive players would have backed off. He gambled on a no call and lost. And yes, I'd rather that call have not been made.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 20, 2011 -> 09:09 AM) But the companies do employ people who pay taxes on just about everything they purchase(except Amazon). If they close up shop and go elsewhere, the people go elsewhere or collect unemployment. Great argument to eliminate all taxes except income tax.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 20, 2011 -> 08:41 AM) The last line is a huge exaggeration. More accurate would have been using the civil war, or more accurately, something like Sherman's march to the sea. Death penalty either way. But ok. It is an exaggeration. How many civil wars has the US stayed out of? What makes this one different? How many military coupes have we sat out?