New DSLR lenses from Nikon
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Problem solved:
Next: ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye
From: Bruce on 11 Feb 2010 17:58 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:37:36 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >Well in the US it will be a bureaucratic nightmare. > >Each of the State which impose a sales tax have a different >distribution of those revenues. the break down for California sales Tax >is as follows; >8.25% >5.00% - State General Fund >0.25% - State Fiscal Recovery Fund >0.50% - State Local Revenue Fund >0.50% - State Local Public Safety Fund >1.00% - Uniform Local Tax >0.25% - Local County - Transportation Funds >0.75% - Local City/County - Operational Funds > >Then some individual California Counties and cities have imposed >additional bumps to that sales tax. I think you have just defined a bureaucratic nightmare! It need not be so complex, and the introduction of VAT would be a very good opportunity to simplify the system. >Also each State has different excise taxes on fuel, alcohol and >tobacco, and California sales tax is imposed on top of those. If you >include the Federal excise taxes on those items alone that amounts to a >de facto triple taxation. > >That is only California, each of the states has their own formula and tax code. We have excise duties here too. And yes, VAT is payable on them. So no different really. >As I said earlier, each State would have to change their tax code and >the Federal government would have to devise a fair method of >distributing those revenues based on local sales. >If that is not going to be a bureaucratic, and costly nightmare I need >further explanation. As I said, the introduction of VAT would provide an opportunity to replace the bureaucratic nightmare you already have with a simpler, fairer and far more transparent system.
From: tony cooper on 11 Feb 2010 18:02 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:31:05 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >I don't see much evidence that Obama is much of a thinker. Take away the >teleprompter and he's lost for words. Whereas Palin had to write "Hi, I'm Sara Palin" on the palm of her hand to ensure at least one cogent point in an interview. The teleprompter thing is a red herring, though. The use of the teleprompter has to do with being able to recite a previously prepared speech without stumbling. The thinking goes into writing the speech that is prepared and then projected onto the teleprompter. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 11 Feb 2010 18:07 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:32:37 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:i2b8n59tp15ch64gtu0gdt2q5l7vv8huip(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:28:54 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" >> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >> >>>Sounds like you are confusing her with Obama. He never had to make a hard >>>decision in any facet of his career before becoming president. At least >>>Palin has experience running something. >> >> Running away from running something is a better description. With >> Palin as President, she'd lose interest in the job if things didn't >> go her way and find some other bright and shiny object to play with. >> >> To me, she's like the Bearded Lady in the carnival sideshow...people >> will pay to see her, but nobody wants to take her home. >> >> -- >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > >She may not be the best choice and is certainly not my first or even second >but if it is between her and Obama, there is no contest. I'll take her in >an instant over Obama. > It seems to me that one of the biggest hurdles any modern-day President has is to effectively work with Congress by retaining the support of his/her own party members and securing at least some support of the opposing party's members. Obama has not been particularly effective in this, but Palin would not be at all effective in this. IMO. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Peter on 11 Feb 2010 18:07 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:5219n5lthr4f62rnh88ack7qg3ulf328tn(a)4ax.com... > > Peter, I really wish you'd read with more attention to what is > actually said. What Ritz does is "evasion of tax collection". They > don't collect the tax. They evade that process. By doing so, they > don't incur the costs of keeping extra records and filing with each > state where they make sales. Please understand that for over fifty years I have been conditioned to understand that in a tax context: "Evasion" is criminal avoidance. What ritz did was legal, hence it was avoidance. > > Only the end-user can evade the payment of sales/use taxes due. Ritz > has clean hands in this because it is not their responsibility, under > current law, to act as a collection and disbursement point. > Agreed. Unless it encourages evasion by the end user. then that encouragement may, or may not rise to a criminal level. > Ritz is not avoiding responsibility. They have no responsibility to > collect sales tax and pass it along to the state. They have > structured themselves in such a way that they do not have this > responsibility, and the current laws allow this. The corporate structure allows Ritz to avoid responsibility. There is nothing wrong with that. Indeed I consider that smart business practice. > > I try to present things clearly and avoid the ambiguous. If I meant > "tax evasion", I would write that. If I mean "evasion of tax > collection", I write that. And I did. > Never said you didn't try. When it comes to taxation issues, by nature and training I am usually extremely precise. If I ever tried to explain to a revenue agent that my client was legally evading taxes, he would look at me as if I had two heads. In other areas, I sometimes err in my choice of words. -- Peter
From: Peter on 11 Feb 2010 18:13
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3s19n55h9naeb2mhd0mto4etv52hk6q5v9(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:21:28 -0500, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>news:k4g8n59q2lfg7hccpfgn3gl0plf8u6n9i2(a)4ax.com... >> >>> And I have. I'd say that 99% of the people who purchase items on the >>> internet are guilty of evading sales tax if they live in a state that >>> imposes sales tax. >>> >>> Criminal, though? I don't know. If caught, you might be required to >>> pay the tax, interest, and a fine...but I doubt if criminal charges >>> would be brought. >>> >> >>Don't know the statistics. However, that is why the question is being >>asked >>on our income tax returns. Making a knowingly false statement on an income >>tax return is a crime. As to enforcement, that sometimes depends on what >>else is on the return. > > This is where "all states are different" comes into play. Florida > does not have a state income tax. If I purchase a camera online, and > do not pay sales/use tax to Florida, I don't have to declare that I > owe no tax. > Yes, not only are states different, there are many cities and other municipal jurisdictions that impose various types of taxes. In New York only New York City and Yonkers are allowed to impose an income tax, but other cities and towns are not. Moreover no ton is allowed to impose any kind of tax without appropriate legislative authority. -- Peter |