Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 7 Nov 2006 10:17 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <1608b$454f3eaa$4fe747e$30818(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Spehro Pefhany wrote: >> >> >>>On Mon, 06 Nov 06 12:16:44 GMT, the renowned jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>> >>>>This is the first field test of governments trying to tax >>>>internet transactions. If it works well in this state, >>>>a similar tax law will become national. >>>> >>>>THINK! dammmit. >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>> >>>AFAIUI, state governments in the US have long demanded payment of >>>"equivalent to" sales taxes on things bought from companies with nexus >>>in other states (by mail, internet or whatever). They have no way of >>>enforcing it for individuals (so it is routinely ignored), but for >>>companies who must have sales tax licenses the "use tax" on taxable >>>items (typically on items that are not consumed in production) is >>>easily enforced since records must be kept to deduct the cost or to >>>calculate depreciation of capital cost on all corporate purchases. >>> >>>Here's some information from California: >>> >>>http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/usetaxreturn.htm >>> >>>They're just making it convenient by allowing you to report it on the >>>IT return, if you're so inclined. I imagine compliance rates are very >>>low. >>> >>>This isn't so much "taxing the internet" but equalizing taxation >>>between in and (completely) out-of-state businesses. It could only be >>>widely enforced (for individuals) if states agreed between themselves >>>to collect and remit taxes for other states. >> >>It will eventually happen. Government is greedy. > > > You are the government. We have a representative government. That places our government as "the people" but not necessarily "the person." In my case they're at more than arm's length.
From: unsettled on 7 Nov 2006 10:18 T Wake wrote: > "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message > news:eipoc7$mrh$5(a)blue.rahul.net... > >>In article <1f889$45505fc8$4fe724c$5551(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> babbled: >> >>>There's nothing as effective as example and first >>>hand experience to inject the democracy meme into >>>a society. Before they go back home, let them have >>>a weekend in whatever USA setting they'd like to >>>experience. >> >>You don't really get much about democracy in Disney Land or a whorehouse. > > > I don't know......... Nicely said.
From: unsettled on 7 Nov 2006 10:22 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <e%H3h.6202$B31.4607(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ein93c$8qk_002(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <uo83h.4309$9v5.64(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > <snip> > > >>>How would you prove that you did not spend money outside the >>>state. You cannot demonstrate this with an absence of data. >>>This is the first field test of governments trying to tax >>>internet transactions. If it works well in this state, >>>a similar tax law will become national. >> >>Why shouldn't internet transactions be taxed? > > > But this isn't happening in my state. What they want to do > instead is tax you sales tax even though you haven't > purchased anything. That is what the clause about taxing > a sales tax based on your income is all about. They trying > to get away with a very nasty tax method and seem to be > doing well at it. If this one "works" for them, it will > show up on IRS forms. Personal property taxes in some places used to be related to the assessed value of your home on some basis or another. Assigning it to one's current income level is, IMO, similar. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
From: Eeyore on 7 Nov 2006 10:24 Lloyd Parker wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > >I think part of the mistake being made is the attempt > >to train Iraqi police in situ. > > Dismantling the Iraqi army was a big mistake too. The officer corps loyal to > Saddam could have been removed and the army kept in place. Absolutely right. It would have avoided making 400,000 ppl unemployed too. Graham
From: lucasea on 7 Nov 2006 10:26
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eipv7t$8qk_003(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <cXH3h.6200$B31.5579(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ein8p9$8qk_001(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <zNSdnSXXb4_BIdHYnZ2dnUVZ8sydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > <snip> > >>> If this conflict becomes a war against Islam, all factions will >>> cooperate with each other temporarily. Why do you think Al >>> Queda is trying to make this a war against Islam? >> >>And exactly why have we decided to act in such a way as to make those >>claims >>credible to many Middle Eastern Muslims? > > We removed the Arab leader who attacked other Arabs and intended to > do it again. The middle eastern Muslims would have the opposite opinion. Sorry, that just simply isn't the case. Just because you choose to ignore survey after survey that show that Iraqis want us the hell out, and that many of them view it as aggression against Islam, doesn't mean that they're not true. >>>>Unsettled is talking nonsense and creating more strawmen than usual >>>>here. >>>>Siding with him on this does your argument no good. >>> >>> Will you get it through your head that I am not siding with anybody >>> except myself? >> >>You might be more convincing in this statement if you were to stop blindly >>spouting the Republicans' fear-mongering talking points. > > If the Republicans mention a fact, you automatically believe it's > a lie. No, I don't. It may seem that way, because the Republicans have lied to us so many times to justify the war, and to justify their stances on scores of other issues, including fiscal responsibility, civil rights, Constitutional rights, etc., etc. I'm exactly the opposite of what you assume about me. I assume what people (*everybody*, even you) say is the truth, unless I know facts (you know, data, that thing that you go out of your way to ignore) that prove them to be lying. Now, think about exactly *why* people might be excused for thinking that all the Republicans are doing is lying--they're losing their grip on power, and trotting out fear is the only tool that has consistently worked to keep them in power....fear of Muslims, fear of people who think differently than they do, fear of people who live and love differently than they do, fear of people who look different than they do, and on and on. > When non-Republicans mention the same fact, you > automatically catagorize them as blind and aping Rep. statements > of fact. No, I don't. But when you repeatedly parrot the Republican talking points, over and over and over again, in the *exact* same words that they use, one has to wonder how much you are thinking on your own...or if you're even capable of telling the difference between thinking and parroting. Eric Lucas |