Texsox

During my recent trip to Big Bend many times I found myself saying "damn, I wish Balta was here to explain this formation". Yes, I have to admit, being a rock jock in an area like Big Bend must be very cool. I even think chicks would dig it. I spent an hour trying to find a volcanic vent which looked like petrified wood. Then another hike was looking for hoodoos. Seeing the exposed layers of different ro\ck, all tumbled together, was interesting.

No thread?

Once we start, we are in it for ever and ever.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) Why do people buy cases of water...when you can buy a cheap water filter and save all the plastic. I blame it on her mother (my ex-wife) I've been after her to stop doing that. Lazy on her part. I've even bought her filters and water bottles. For a while she was at least buying gallon size spring water and piouring it into reusable bottles.

Drive In Movies Trophies to the winners

She had $60 but she bought a Big Mac

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 07:35 AM) He actually has principles and hasn't been bought out by special interests like 98% of the rest of Washington. Or he sold them, he didn't rent them

I agree with SS that tax incentives are tax incentives and those incentives and other regulatory issues need to be weighed against job creation. What makes this kind of different is in theory sales taxes are a pass through for the business. Yes, there is some expense in tracking and sending payments, but it isn't exactly like property taxes that they would need to pay regardless of sales volume. Also, near as I can tell the bulk of these affiliates are about the same as eBay sellers and really not contributing to their state's revenue. I wonder if Amazon announced they were ending their affiliate program if states would line up to offer Amazon an incentive to keep the program in place. I would have an easier time justifying a state offering Internet businesses who locate in their state being allowed to continue to ship tax free inside the state. Currently two Illinois based business, each shipping to customers within the state, could either have to charge sales tax or not if they were shipping through Amazon or someone else. That doesn't seem right. But that is really a side issue to solving the real problem of a significant percentage of consumer spending that was generating revenue for states and local communities that are going away. My daughter buys almost all her non perishable items from Amazon and receives free delivery to her apartment. No lugging cases of water up two flights of stairs.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 06:28 AM) Honestly it depends on the situation. The reality is that it isn't any different in theory than giving property tax abatements to a factory full of union workers to come to your town, which happens all of the time, and is perfectly acceptable in today's political world. The only real difference is the taxing body involved here, and the way laws are currently written. Right now, at least in the state of Indiana, there aren't any exceptions for brick and mortar stores. If there were, I wouldn't have a problem with it being used like any other business recruiting tool that is used. I agree with all your underlying points, but come to a different conclusion. I believe the big difference is "coming to town". Amazon is not coming to town. You are giving an incentive for an Oregon company, who employs a ton of full time people out of state, to continue to use part time employees in your state. Plus, I really question how much these affiliates contribute to their home states. I suspect many are on par with eBay sellers. I was thinking about the 10,000 affiliate number in California. How much business would Amazon have to have to support 10,000 full time workers? If it was truly that much, would they really walk away from that much business? They were being asked to do exactly what they are in their home state, collect sales tax on sales to that destination. Another thought, is it fair that an Oregon business ships sales tax free into Illinois, yet an Illinois based internet business would have to charge sales tax? It seems like states have a really tough time with this. I would rather offer the incentive to create an Amazon competitor in my state, than give an incentive to an out of state company.

I really hope that a President, any President, has more information available than a candidate. I also believe that until you actually are in the room, having to make a decision like this, that you really don't know with 90% certainty how you will react. There is nothing in life that really compares to this and I have prayed for every President that he can live with his decisions.

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 . . .