BILLIONAIRE KOCH TO BILLIONAIRE BUFFETT:

[hypocritexposer]

It costs to run governments that work and they shouldn't get away with not paying the part everyone else does.


Tex

It is the consumer that would not be paying the sales tax, in this case, not Amazon.

If the citizens feel that strongly that they should be paying the sales tax, then submit it. Mail it to the government voluntarily and continue to save the amount that Amazon would have to charge, to collect the tax for the government.

What you don't seem to understand Tex, is there are costs associated with collecting sales tax for the government. Employee costs, technology costs etc.

Or tell Amazon you don't want them to create jobs in TN, and to move to China, or Alberta, we won't request they collect a Provincial sales tax.


We have a tax in Canada, the GST, which the businesses are just proxy tax collectors.

We charge our customers the 5% and we pay the 5%, when we make purchases, only to incur an expense of file keeping etc. to get a 5% refund. But I'm sure it costs a little in income tax, seeing as the government also has expenses to charge us the 5%, only to give it back later.

The only one that ends up paying the actual tax, is the retail consumer. But all along the way, the farmers/ranchers, everybody incur additional expenses to be the "tax collector"

 

[Tex]

It costs to run governments that work and they shouldn't get away with not paying the part everyone else does.


Tex

It is the consumer that would not be paying the sales tax, in this case, not Amazon.

If the citizens feel that strongly that they should be paying the sales tax, then submit it. Mail it to the government voluntarily and continue to save the amount that Amazon would have to charge, to collect the tax for the government.

What you don't seem to understand Tex, is there are costs associated with collecting sales tax for the government. Employee costs, technology costs etc.

Or tell Amazon you don't want them to create jobs in TN, and to move to China, or Alberta, we won't request they collect a Provincial sales tax.


We have a tax in Canada, the GST, which the businesses are just proxy tax collectors.

We charge our customers the 5% and we pay the 5%, when we make purchases, only to incur an expense of file keeping etc. to get a 5% refund. But I'm sure it costs a little in income tax, seeing as the government also has expenses to charge us the 5%, only to give it back later.

The only one that ends up paying the actual tax, is the retail consumer. But all along the way, the farmers/ranchers, everybody incur additional expenses to be the "tax collector"

The SCOTUS problem is one where the state of TN has to agree to continue to accept the free trade part but not charge the tax that keeps the government running. Your examples of Amazon moving to China or somewhere else shows this problem.

If you want to sell to the demand in TN, you should have to pay the costs of government that TN has and funds through sales tax or don't do business in TN. The SCOTUS, by not handling this problem, is making it bigger. That is what the republican governor of TN is saying. This has to do with the federal free trade zone.

I don't know about your GST tax but if you want good government, you have to pay for it. TN does is through their sales tax.

It will be interesting to see how it turns out. I think the SCOTUS and the federal politicians are on the hook here for not solving this problem. It has sat out there for a long time. Now the line is being pushed.

Would I stand for principal like the TN gov. seems to be doing instead of scabbing off of other states? Yes, I would, and I would tell businesses like Amazon that if they want to undercut the economy in TN and not fund the govt. through its flat tax of sales tax, they can leave. That isn't a possibility with the SCOTUS decision and it needs to be reviewed.

One has to draw the line or no one will pay their taxes.

Tex

 

[hypocritexposer]

Tex, you're getting as bad as OT. You're making stuff up as you go along.

 

[Tex]

Tex, you're getting as bad as OT. You're making stuff up as you go along.

Okay, call.

What are you talking about?

Tex

 

[hypocritexposer]

Tex, you're getting as bad as OT. You're making stuff up as you go along.

Okay, call.

What are you talking about?

Tex

You make it sound like Amazon is with holding taxes owed, they are not.


1) Is Amazon paying sales tax, or any tax in TN at present? NO

2) Is Amazon "selling to demand" in TN at present? YES

3) Are the taxpayers of TN receiving any benefit from those Amazon sales into TN at present? NO

4) Is the consumer? YES

5) Are there 1000s of people in TN out of work, that are costing the taxpayer money? YES

6) would it be beneficial for the taxpayer, if Amazon spent 100s of $millions in the state? YES

 

[Tex]

Tex, you're getting as bad as OT. You're making stuff up as you go along.

Okay, call.

What are you talking about?

Tex

You make it sound like Amazon is with holding taxes owed, they are not.


1) Is Amazon paying sales tax, or any tax in TN at present? NO

2) Is Amazon "selling to demand" in TN at present? YES

3) Are the taxpayers of TN receiving any benefit from those Amazon sales into TN at present? NO

4) Is the consumer? YES

5) Are there 1000s of people in TN out of work, that are costing the taxpayer money? YES

6) would it be beneficial for the taxpayer, if Amazon spent 100s of $millions in the state? YES

I never said they were "holding taxes" that were owed. They got a tax exemption of the "sufficient presence" and the state taxes other companies in the state have to collect and pay.

Under your theory, you would continue to capitulate to business to get the employment. Meanwhile, your existing businesses in the state would be paying the tax burden while new ones would not. They would be scabbing off of them. That isn't a net gain, that is transfer of wealth to get new businesses. I am for a fair playing field for all of them and putting a stop to this kind of opportunistic business behavior. It only occurs because the businesses can and do use the roads of TN or other respective states that other people are funding and paying for and not them.

The SCOTUS set up this problem because they didn't allow states to collect sales taxes for companies without the "sufficient presence" deal.
They set up a system of continual capitulation of local and state governments AT THE PUBLIC"S INTEREST to business interests. This isn't a net gain for the U.S. but a net gain for businesses like Amazon at the public's expense because many governors are trying to make deals and scab businesses off of other states to get the employment.

You seem to support tax dodging and businesses being able to play one state off of another while their governors are making special taxing and other public exemptions for them.

This is what the SCOTUS decision set up.

The SCOTUS is as responsible for the problem as anyone. They seem to want federal powers but not federal responsibilities that come with those powers. They want to be able to say what the taxing policy will be for sales in a state but they aren't doing a thing about how to pay for the government that keeps the state functioning. These are federal responsibilities.

Since we seem to have a perpetual trade deficit in our country, I think our trade negotiators are doing the same thing. A trade deficit means they want the power to make trade deals but can't help for the fact that those trade deals are bad for the U.S. as a whole--- in the case of trade about 40 to 60 billion a month net of business leaving the U.S. but still being able to sell the demand of the U.S. consumers. That is how much we are subsidizing the Chinese economy.

These are federal responsibilities that add up over time until the mess becomes big.


By the way, I saw the president of China or one of their high ranking officials getting questioned about this. His answer was that the U.S. wouldn't sell China air craft carriers or destroyers or other big military equipment.

Here is the argument in TN:

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/jul/26/group-threatens-suit-over-amazon-taxes/

Tex

 

[hypocritexposer]

:roll: :roll:


Tripping over dollars to pick up dimes. It's a shame

 

[Tex]

Most of the "policy makers" work for the agencies, they are not elected, they are appointed by ideologues like obama.

cut the agencies to the bone, and scrap many of the regulations that are in existence and replace them with simple, enforceable regulations, that do not require 100,000 of government workers , to enforce.

Remove a substantial number of people on the corporate dole and the corporations will not have as much power and control.

I agree with you on the corporate dole thing and let me inform you that the GIPSA rules have little to do with adding additional people at GIPSA but has a lot to do with the insane judicial decisions when these cases come up.

Cut the crap and go after the trump card, the federal judges who can't or will not enforce the federal laws of the land against some of these corporations.

They did let an Oklahoma case stand but those who sued got $40,000 which is nothing compared to the investment.

This industry is undergoing huge economic frauds while politicians are taking payoffs as well as their buddies who left and went to the law firms that represent the meat packers. It is a racket.

Tex

Maybe the Judges are enforcing the "Law of the Land", by not enforcing federal regulations placed on citizens by appointed bureaucrats.

states should be responsible for much of the regulations you advocate, not the Feds, or the agencies that make up regulations that benefit corps. and their pocketbooks.

And what regulations am I advocating?

Federal judges are not always enforcing the law of the land. Sometimes they make the lamest excuses when they don't want to enforce a law. In court, it is called "Chevron deference" where they are to rely on the specific policy position of the agencies when presented in court. No, they don't always follow it. Sometimes the court makes up things and does what they want.

Tex