Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

Amazon now Charging Tax!


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 251-275 of 773 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 9:07:10 AM PST
JNagarya says:
So instead of a 5 per cent income tax, you have a 9 per cent tax on goods.

Doncha jus' love intelligence!?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 9:12:32 AM PST
JNagarya says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 9:14:23 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 11, 2012 9:53:48 AM PST
JNagarya says:
Amazon has lobbied on the state level against the tax measures. But not all that aggressively. Essentially, if Amazon has a distribution warehouse in a state, that state's tax is added to the price.

I suppose Amazon could move all its distribution warehouses to Canada . . .

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 9:18:05 AM PST
JNagarya says:
Interesting how so many object to state pensions for state employees, despite the fact that state employees _pay into_ their pension fund, while not at all objecting to private pensions for private sector employees, unless the latter voted for Rmoney, in which case they are glad to see their pensions outsourced to an exotic Swiss bank account in Rmoney's name.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 9:20:18 AM PST
JNagarya says:
His name is NorqiRmonyan.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 9:24:09 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 11, 2012 9:55:18 AM PST
JNagarya says:
It's okay when Conservative politicians give your taxes to private sector corporations that kick them back as campaign contributions to Conservative politicians.

Get over your bigotry against the powerless -- those who form unions in order to consolidate their minor power against concentrated corporate power -- and "liberals": you pay taxes for your benefit, or you pay taxes for the benefit of the wealthy. And you aren't the wealthy.

In addition to which, ignorant-of-labor-history: the Founders were PRO-UNION.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 9:31:52 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 11, 2012 9:56:28 AM PST
JNagarya says:
Well, that is the country-level governance approved by the tax protester nuts. Any taxation -- any gov't -- above that is "unconstitutional" (as is the Constitution by means of which they determine that unconstitutionality).

It would be more convenient, less of a headache, if the taxes were state-level, so they'd be the same regardless the county; lot less hair-pulling, and expense for pencils and paper and classes in mathematics.

But that would violate the purity of the ideology of the "I built it myself"-without-relying-on-anything-or-anyone-outside-my-comfy-portable-delusion-of-being-a-self-sufficient-island crowd.

So let's make things as complicated as possible in order to achieve the desired outcome: a simpler life.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 9:35:50 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 11, 2012 9:57:11 AM PST
JNagarya says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 9:37:48 AM PST
JNagarya says:
"You don't get to pick and choose which state and federal budgetary items to which you personally are willing to contribute every time you pay taxes and earmark your tax dollars for only those specific things."

And I'll bet he's against "earmarks" too.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 9:47:30 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 11, 2012 9:59:55 AM PST
JNagarya says:
"Also, my senator Dick Durbin recognizes this issue and has introduced legislation to remedy this.
If anyone in IL was legally bound to pay Amazon sales tax on their IL1040, why does Durbin need to address it at all?"
_____

Because Durbin is legislating national, not statewide. Doubtless there are exceptions to "Quill Corp.," which you cite but haven't read.

And because you haven't a clue how legal process works. An SC decision is not the "bible"; and an SC decision does not cover everything and apply to absolutely every perturbation in the unverse.

"Lastly, illegals may pay sales tax, but they don't file state or federal tax forms do they? If so, it's likely to be with a false SSN."

IF they filed with "a false SSN," they would still be paying the taxes owed -- correct?

But let's try to drag your self-justifying fantasies back toward reality:

Your imaginary illegals are employed by non-illegals who know full well that they are hiring illegals.

But you're the usual "Libertarian": if a gov't official accepts a bribe, only the gov't official is violating the law, because only gov't can do wrong. You leave out the briber -- who _initiated_ the violation, and is _also_ violating thee law. (The private sector briber is prosecutable under the law because we want to prevent bribery of gov't officials. See how that works?)

We know your answer to the question already, but I'll ask the question anyway:

Is there never corruption in the private corporate sector?

And this:

Why are you not hammering the legal citizen who employs illegals in order to avoid minimum wage laws and paying taxes?

Right: because you are all for avoiding taxes -- your bogus and racist excuse being the imaginary illegal who is allegedly doing so.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 9:49:33 AM PST
JNagarya says:
"California and Washington are run by ideologues who have no idea how to run a state and balance a budget."

Hooboy -- someone who has never been in the position to run a state and balance a budget is nonetheless an expert on doing so.

Typical "Libertarian" know-nothing.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 9:52:25 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 11, 2012 10:00:55 AM PST
JNagarya says:
Money to waste? Are you suggesting that Massachusetts doesn't have bills and state services that are to be paid for?

Infrastructure that needs maintenance, repair, and even replacement?

It is so f'ing easy to repeat the far-right's Founders/gov't-hating mantra -- but so much more mature and difficult to live in reality, and think instead of believe, and actually deal with facts instead of horseshit slogans.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 10:28:19 AM PST
bfore13 says:
When you reply to a post and quote it, you might want to make sure you're replying to the person who actually typed said quote.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 12:14:39 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Dec 11, 2012 12:21:35 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 1:06:24 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 11, 2012 1:11:53 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 1:11:45 PM PST
stevign says:
Sorry Gomer but I'm not taking your juvenile attempt at baiting. Rant on.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 11, 2012 8:02:24 PM PST
A. Salcido says:
Sorry JNagaria, but your wrong on too many levels to reply to your rant.

You remind me of Landon in Planet of the Apes after Taylor reunites with him.
Just another drooling bafoon

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 12:02:20 PM PST
Wayne says:
If they use a fake (or borrowed) SSN, not only do they still pay taxes, but they can't collect benefits from the payments. Which means they are effectively paying more, not less.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 12:11:47 PM PST
Wayne says:
The problem with the argument is that money is fungible. If I have $90 in my bank account, and you give me $10 more but tell me that the $10 must go toward my electric bill, I still end up with $100 in the bank. If I pay my electric bill and it's over $10, I can claim that I used "earmarked" money, but it's all a game. All I would have done would have been to write a check. Nobody at the bank would make sure that the "right" $10 was used.

It all boils down to having a budget and deciding to spend certain amounts in different areas. If a state decides that it will fund roads with a sales tax increase, it means that the equivalent amount does not have to be deducted from the revenues from other sources. Without an earmark, the state could have spent the same amount on roads, claimed it came from income tax money, and ended up with more supposed sales tax revenue to spend elsewhere.

I suppose I could tell the state to spend all of my tax money on mosquito control or new traffic lights and ask to see the receipts to see that they really spent the money. But those things would be available as public records regardless.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 12:14:25 PM PST
Wayne says:
Your state could have chosen to have an income tax and no sales tax, in which case there would be no issues collecting from out of state merchants.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 10:18:22 PM PST
JNagarya says:
You refute none of what I posted. Learn how our system of gov't is structured, and functions. Begin by reading the Constitution, which incorporates taxation.

The first law enacted by the first Congress was the oath of loyalty to gov't. The second was a revenue law to fund the operations of gov't.

The Founders tended to know what they were doing, and show what they intended by actions.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 4:16:10 AM PST
bfore13 says:
My state, PA, has both income tax and sales tax.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 8:11:27 AM PST
stevign says:
Nine states have no state income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. The states of New Hampshire and Tennessee tax their residents only on income earned through interest and dividends.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 9:11:14 AM PST
Wayne says:
Most states have both. I'd personally rather see just an income tax. Back in the days (well before my lifetime) when there were neither, a big complaint was about the unfairness of property taxes that unfairly targeted the poor. A person who had no means was in danger of losing his home (or her home if women were allowed to hold property) while those who earned lots of money from their land gave no more back to the state.

I already paid tax on the money I am spending to buy things, and a lot of it. If I earn more, I'll be happy to pay income tax on that too. And it's fine with me if people with little income don't have to pay taxes on their earnings. But once it's my money, I'd like to be able to spend it.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 9:30:22 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 13, 2012 9:31:37 AM PST
stevign says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 31 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Blu-ray forum
Participants:  287
Total posts:  773
Initial post:  Sep 1, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 27, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 24 customers

Search Customer Discussions