I Missed This One...

ng about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters her e who do that often.

Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 s ales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stat ed in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such so und legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much hi gher than previously and implying that states and local governments would b e insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of eve ry day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is s till not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all c ountry import tax.

AFter posting that I saw where Trump actually has done something about it. His given notice that the US is withdrawing from the international agreemen t where the intl body determines the rates. It happens Oct, unless the issues are fixed. That's an example of a Trump action that I support.

e.

That's right, tariffs in general don't work and are wrong. Beyond the fact that they don't work, it's a HUGE expansion of govt power, which conservatives are supposed to be opposed to. Do you want the govt, Trump, picking the winners and losers in the US economy? See any issues ripe for abuse there? Companies that lobby and pay, get tariff protection, those out of favor, get screwed.

hing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters h ere who do that often.

e Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if the y have no physical presence there. That sucks!

th Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was st ated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of e very day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

s will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since thi s ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.

ent

This issue is in the noise for pretty much everyone. That's why Trump is s pending time on it. He likes making noise. It's not about the fees. It's about making himself appear to be doing useful things. This is not really a useful thing. But it is something that people will rally behind so Trum p can get out in front and lead.

age.

s!

Why not call a tariff what it is, a tax. It is a tax that is paid ONLY by US buyers. What a great idea. Tax the US and say it is hurting the foreig ners. Yeah, Trump is really good a manipulating people into thinking thing s like this are a good idea.

y nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few po sters here who do that often.

c. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer ev en if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Qui ll was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was bas ed on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sale s being much higher than previously and implying that states and local go vernments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt pract ical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Cons titution... not!

things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) si nce this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a uni versal, all country import tax.

pretty good

go through the hassle of collecting VAT for that country, but one you sta rt selling more to that country you have to pay the VAT and compete on eq ual terms

as sales tax. Is it collected by a vendor and then paid to the state? I guess I had the impression it was integrated into the price of the item rather than collected as a separate item. Maybe I have this impression b ecause VAT is paid at each stage of the process but the only tax that sho ws is what is being added in a given transaction. So all VAT paid at ear lier stages is hidden and not indicated explicitly. A sales tax is only collected at the final retail sale.

to the state

s can deduct the VAT they pay buying stuff from the VAT they have to pay when selling it

it for 100?, 20? is VAT,

ate mandates a sales tax and a company doesn't have a presence in that st ate and doesn't pay the tax, how can the state collect it from them?

t the VAT,

oms and collect at delivery (unless it slips by customs with sometimes ha ppens from China, in my experience never from the US)

ow

ost

I suppose you also would be opposed to taxes on wealth?

en

ld

or

Government is just a more civilized form of organized crime. You pay protection (A Piece Of The Action) for that gain. If you don't want that

protection or roads, schools, hospitals, etc, then find somewhere to live where a proper government doesn't exist. Perhaps Venezuela? The taxpayers role is to keep the government in track so they don't spend $12,000 for a hammer. All organizations grow and need reigning in or excesses occur.

Back to corporations as persons, much as I am not a big fan of Wikipedia

they have a good historical perspective:

I own two companies and pay the business taxes as well as my personal ones. I see no logical error in that, my businesses have separate rights

from me, and they have protections that are governed by law, so should they not pay tax to keep the laws working and protections in place?

Where I have trouble is where a corporation (as an 'individual') can hire reams of lobbyists to argue against paying tax or making laws, etc.

The best I can do as an individual is hire a tax lawyer or join a NGO to

argue a point. It would be nice if major corps could only have the same level of lobbying that individuals do...that corporate lobbying is an excess that needs to be curbed.

Back to work for me!

John :-#)#

e:

othing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 2

orth Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on suc h sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being muc h higher than previously and implying that states and local governments wou ld be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

ngs will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since t his ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, a ll country import tax.

dy

ple

ers

it.

ement

It's not in the noise for US companies that are trying to compete with unfair competition with China. Again, you libs just dismiss what is unfair to US companies and side with foreign companies. Even better if it's a commie country, libs love Russia, Cuba, China. But if there is a regime somewhere that was doing similar and it was run by some dictator that's friendly to the US, why then libs are outraged.

That's why Trump is spending time on it. He likes making noise. It's not about the fees. It's about making himself appear to be doing useful thing s. This is not really a useful thing. But it is something that people wil l rally behind so Trump can get out in front and lead.

Of course if your business was getting screwed with China selling items for $1 with the shipping cost born by USPS while it costed you more than that to ship it, why then it would be a whole different story. And your're so stupid, you don't realize they are screwing you too. USPS raises rates, it cost you 55 cents to mail a letter, because the Chinese are using USPS at loss rates. But heh, Trump is fixing it, so because you're suffering from Trump derangement syndrome, well it has to be bad.

I got a good laugh from the lib media the last few days. They were all over Trump's new tariff threat with Mexico. It was going to drive up the price of food, drive up the prices of cars. That big dope that runs Chipolte, he was pissing and moaning that they might have to raise the price of Burrito! It was non-stop, all last week. Mexico just caved, agreed to do a lot more to stop the flow of migrants bum rushing the border. Trump won, no tariffs, no cost.

ent

ntage.

ods!

ree

y US buyers. What a great idea. Tax the US and say it is hurting the fore igners. Yeah, Trump is really good a manipulating people into thinking thi ngs like this are a good idea.

Tariffs are not necessarily only paid by US buyers. In many cases foreign companies lower their prices to offset some or all of the tariffs. I don't think tariffs are a great idea. I don't think the way Trump approached the China problem was right. He started trade wars with just about everybody, instead of focusing on China. But there is plenty wrong with what China is doing that needs to be addressed. Prior presidents did nothing at all.

ote:

e:

e:

nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few poste rs here who do that often.

. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill wa s stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on s uch sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being m uch higher than previously and implying that states and local governments w ould be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not !

hings will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas whic h is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.

eady

out

eople

buy

llers

t it.

reement

I've asked you several times I believe which US companies are being harmed by the postage issue? I don't know of any companies that try to compete wi th the Chinese vendors who take advantage of the cheap shipping. Mostly th is is because even if shipping were equal, they still coundn't compete.

So are there companies that complain about this?

ot about the fees. It's about making himself appear to be doing useful thi ngs. This is not really a useful thing. But it is something that people w ill rally behind so Trump can get out in front and lead.

I don't mail letters. I use online banking and most checks are sent wirele ssly.

BTW, you really should learn to post properly. Much of what I posted is in your post as if you wrote it. This seems to be a recurring problem.

This is another Trumped up issue. Woopie. We don't have to turn back a fe w more refugees. Not a real issue, a Trumped up issue.

g.

han

st

ement

vantage.

goods!

t.

ked

free

by US buyers. What a great idea. Tax the US and say it is hurting the fo reigners. Yeah, Trump is really good a manipulating people into thinking t hings like this are a good idea.

You sound like Trump. You claim China is doing wrong without saying what i t is. Then when Trump is done screwing up agreements, he claims he got a g reat deal when in reality he accomplished little. That's the way Trump has been working for decades. Now he is running the country the way he ran hi s businesses... at a loss!

That's a moral perspective, or actually immoral by my standards. What feels fair isn't usually what works best for the people.

If you don't tax businesses much, they can grow, compete with offshore businesses, and create US jobs. Then you can tax the people who have the jobs.

Or be fair and moral, kill the businesses, and have no-one to tax.

The big picture is that a society must in the long term defer some present consumption in favor of investment for future productivity. The entities that invest are rich people and businesses. Bleed them at peril to everyone.

Simple fix: tax consumption.

I find it amusing that states will make gigantic tax concessions, and even provide subsidies, to get a big auto plant or an Amazon center or to get a movie shot locally. If that makes sense, why don't they do it for all businesses, all the time?

Not really. International pricing is set by international competitive markets. If the US government increases my taxes, I don't just pass it on. I could just as well "pass on" the cost of a new Frerrari.

If I could increase my prices - for any reason - and come out ahead, I would. The market sets my prices, irrespective of my costs.

The actual effect of high corporate taxation is to drive US companies out of competitive markets, partly by killing them.

ally nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few p osters here who do that often.

Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of good s or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer eve n if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quil l was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales bei ng much higher than previously and implying that states and local governmen ts would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspe cts of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

re things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) s ince this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a univer sal, all country import tax.

a pretty good

o go through the hassle of collecting VAT for that country, but one you sta rt selling more to that country you have to pay the VAT and compete on equa l terms

as sales tax. Is it collected by a vendor and then paid to the state? I guess I had the impression it was integrated into the price of the item rat her than collected as a separate item. Maybe I have this impression becaus e VAT is paid at each stage of the process but the only tax that shows is w hat is being added in a given transaction. So all VAT paid at earlier stag es is hidden and not indicated explicitly. A sales tax is only collected a t the final retail sale.

to the state

s can deduct the VAT they pay buying stuff from the VAT they have to pay wh en selling it

it for 100?, 20? is VAT,

tate mandates a sales tax and a company doesn't have a presence in that sta te and doesn't pay the tax, how can the state collect it from them?

t the VAT,

oms and collect at delivery (unless it slips by customs with sometimes happ ens from China, in my experience never from the US)

ow

ost

I suppose you also would be opposed to taxes on wealth?

Larkin loves to invent his own economics even though he will tell you econo mics can't be understood.

Here is a simple fact. If a company makes very little profit, it pays very little in taxes. As the profits go down, the taxes go down in direct prop ortion. So it is pretty much impossible for an otherwise viable company to be driven out of business by ordinary business taxes in the US.

nomics can't be understood.

ry little in taxes. As the profits go down, the taxes go down in direct pr oportion. So it is pretty much impossible for an otherwise viable company to be driven out of business by ordinary business taxes in the US.

Lol.

Yeah, that was pretty funny.

Don't be silly. They have nothing to do with each other.

Because they *are* people, or at least a conglomeration of people.

You're severely confused.

Taxing at the consumer does exactly the same thing, where it be income or "sales". Tariffs tilt the table the other direction, if that's the desire.

ally nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few p osters here who do that often.

Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of good s or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer eve n if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quil l was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales bei ng much higher than previously and implying that states and local governmen ts would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspe cts of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

re things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) s ince this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a univer sal, all country import tax.

a pretty good

o go through the hassle of collecting VAT for that country, but one you sta rt selling more to that country you have to pay the VAT and compete on equa l terms

as sales tax. Is it collected by a vendor and then paid to the state? I guess I had the impression it was integrated into the price of the item rat her than collected as a separate item. Maybe I have this impression becaus e VAT is paid at each stage of the process but the only tax that shows is w hat is being added in a given transaction. So all VAT paid at earlier stag es is hidden and not indicated explicitly. A sales tax is only collected a t the final retail sale.

to the state

s can deduct the VAT they pay buying stuff from the VAT they have to pay wh en selling it

it for 100?, 20? is VAT,

tate mandates a sales tax and a company doesn't have a presence in that sta te and doesn't pay the tax, how can the state collect it from them?

t the VAT,

oms and collect at delivery (unless it slips by customs with sometimes happ ens from China, in my experience never from the US)

ow

ost

I suppose you also would be opposed to taxes on wealth?

Yes, really. US companies that pay US taxes have that as a cost of doing business, it affects their selling prices, just like the cost of raw material, labor or rent. Whether all of them can easily pass it on or not is a different issue. Just because a US company has to pay a tax that amounts to a few percent on the selling price of it's product doesn't mean that suddenly the sales of that product overseas goes to zero or is even much impacted at all. It all depends on the market competition, the supply and demand curves. And clearly overall, US companies paying federal taxes is in part financed by foreign customers who buy their products.

And when all suppliers in an industry have a tax cost, it gets passed on to their customers, both foreign and domestic. How that affects sales depends on the supply and demand curves. But overall, foreign customers who are buying US products are paying the taxes of those companies just as surely as they are paying for labor, raw material and rent. If you imposed some new tax on those US companies, they might lose some business to foreign competitors, it depends on the particular business. But the rest of the customers are paying the tax.

We're not talking about "high" taxation. I simply pointed out that if US companies pay tax, one benefit is that if they have foreign customers, then we are collecting some of that from FOREIGNERS, who otherwise would not be taxed.

ally nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few p osters here who do that often.

Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of good s or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer eve n if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quil l was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales bei ng much higher than previously and implying that states and local governmen ts would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspe cts of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

re things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) s ince this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a univer sal, all country import tax.

a pretty good

o go through the hassle of collecting VAT for that country, but one you sta rt selling more to that country you have to pay the VAT and compete on equa l terms

as sales tax. Is it collected by a vendor and then paid to the state? I guess I had the impression it was integrated into the price of the item rat her than collected as a separate item. Maybe I have this impression becaus e VAT is paid at each stage of the process but the only tax that shows is w hat is being added in a given transaction. So all VAT paid at earlier stag es is hidden and not indicated explicitly. A sales tax is only collected a t the final retail sale.

to the state

s can deduct the VAT they pay buying stuff from the VAT they have to pay wh en selling it

it for 100?, 20? is VAT,

tate mandates a sales tax and a company doesn't have a presence in that sta te and doesn't pay the tax, how can the state collect it from them?

t the VAT,

oms and collect at delivery (unless it slips by customs with sometimes happ ens from China, in my experience never from the US)

ow

ost

I suppose you also would be opposed to taxes on wealth?

No it does not. A consumption tax on the consumer is typically paid at retail sales, ie a sales tax. If a US company sends a wholesaler tires or computer chips, it's not taxed as a retail sale. But if that company is paying a corp tax, it gets added to the price just like raw materials, labor or rent. Even if someone in France orders a retail item from here, it's generally not subject to a sales tax.

Sorry, I meant "VAT" or "sales". I was thinking of the replacement for the income tax (i.e. the "Fair Tax").

Unless these things are used by the corporation. Even here it gets murky and each state is different. We have to pay tax on pencils but not on resistors, even for our use. At my previous employer we had to pay sales tax on both. It made grabbing a few resistors off a reel a mess.

Purchases from other jurisdictions (until the recent SCotUS decision, anyway) aren't taxed. The sales tax is a real mess and it's a different mess here than it is a mile from here (same city, different taxing authority).

Typically, because it helps sales outside the jurisdiction and "sales" taxes are taxes directly on consumers. OTOH, there is no reason it couldn't.

I think the fundamental problem not the collection but rather what the government does with tax revenue..

If it is used for what we need and want and ultimately benefits the taxpayers, no problem. ie, build transportation, communications infrastructure, national defense etc.

But if it is wasted on unneeded military adventures, or corruption, then we have a problem.

If it wasn't wasted, there would be more then enough tax revenue for what is needed.

Define "need". *THAT* is the problem (well, other than outright corruption).

You're never going to get agreement on what it should be spent on. Too much tax is still a problem.

NT

Venezuela is a failed state. What they are doing has nothing to do with mor ality, though some of the politicians may be making misleading claims to ju stify what they are doing.

Economists and politicians have a much better grasp of economics than Johnn Larkin does, or gives them credit for. It takes quite a lot of regulation to stop free market economies from slipping into the hands of cartels and m onopolies, so "mostly leaving the economy alone" isn't actually a good idea .

Who don't have any direct control of the day-to-day activities if the compa ny.

This is an argument for regressive taxation - the rich spend less of their income on personal consumption, so they pay a smaller share of the income t o keep society running, while society's activities constitute more to their income that it does to the incomes of the less well-off.

Progressive taxation is a much better idea, not only because the rich have got more money and can contribute more than the less well-off.