Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: ๏̯͡๏﴿ Gwinnett-That's a Civil Matter-County
2,118 posts, read 6,384,737 times
Reputation: 3548
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRFLASHPORT
Cittic, your missing something here: sales tax and property tax are just like your HOA dues: if you don't like them, to use your own logic, "you can always live somewhere else"
Just like HOA dues, they are necessary for the LOCALITY to function. SPLOSTs are how counties fund mass infrastructure improvements. Yes, the state may kick in some, as does the Feds on certain projects like infrastructure and public safety, but the lion's share still has to come from LOCAL funding.
So again, how do you propose your LOCAL county or city government have a full OPEX/CAPEX budget to continue the business of running a government and provide the very services that bring about the quality of life you expect without charging local sales tax and property taxes?
If no one puts into the kitty, they can't function. It's as simple as that.
For the 3rd and final time, I am not suggesting there are no taxes. I am suggesting that taxes should be collected based on one's ability to pay. If you lose your job and have no money coming in, something like property tax can mean you're out of of your house and living on the street. Weren't you one of the people shouting "I demand freedom to enjoy my property" in the HOA thread? Well the property doesn't belong to you. Even if you own your home outright, each year you have to pay rent on it to the government. (whether you've got money to pay it or not). Where I live, the overwhelming majority of that goes towards schools. I, a single guy with no kids and no desire to ever produce any, has to pay the same amount towards schools as my next door neighbor who, theoretically could have 9 children and pay the exact same thing. That doesn't sound fair to me. I'm not asking not to have to spend a dime of my tax money on schools but to be paying the same amount ain't right either. But if I had to pay several thousands of dollars a year to pay to educate other people's brood, I'd rather do so based on my ability to pay. That way if I am ever in a position where I can't pay, I won't lose the roof over my head because of it.
Because this is not really on topic, I'll be happy to discuss it by DM or some other means of contact.
Now for an on-topic comment, does anyone else find it ironic how just this past spring, laws were passed exempting large corporations (many of which are making plenty of profits) from paying sales tax on things such as the electricity they consume but somebody ordering clothes and school supplies for their kids online will now get penalized with an 8% tax?
Yeah mrflashport, I'll just go attend the meetings. I guess in the case of my county, they're held in the local state prison.
Yeah, but it also depends on what charities conservatives and liberals donate to. Conservatives will always have the upper hand in terms of giving because traditionally, institutions concerned with economic & fiscal power typically tend to bring out the "conservative" in individuals, with a few exceptions like George Soros.
Also, just because conservatives give more to charities doesn't necessarily mean that this giving will have any sort of impact on the less well off, as many local charities concerned with helping the homeless & the indigent have experienced an extreme decrease in donations during this economic downturn.
People will give according to their philosophy and outlook on life. And if my hunches are correct, I have a strong feeling that conservative giving mostly trends towards institutions of power & prestige like churches, think tanks, and political-oriented foundations, NOT smaller regional charities concerned with keeping people from losing their homes, going without good nutritious food on the table, going without heat in winter, or cooling systems during the summer.
It also seems like conservative are more interested in giving with short-term results rather than charitable giving for chronic issues that may not be easily resolved in a short span of time.
And also to note: my sister often donates free hours of tax preparation as part of her affiliation with the National Association of Black Accountants. And there are many people who donate hours upon hours yearly serving holiday meals with Hosea's Feed the Homeless foundation. And yet those "man-hours" aren't tallied up in this equation of liberal charitable giving versus conservative giving.
Just my humble opinion on this matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by westau
Not all, and not even most conservatives are "against any kind of social programs that provide funding for citizens to ensure the survival of our populace".
We want ones that actually help people long term that aren't just a handout that makes people dependent on government and also feel like private charities do a better job than government handouts. If conservatives were so against helping the poor then why do we donate more to charity than liberals?
Last edited by AcidSnake; 10-07-2012 at 05:49 PM..
Actually, Amazon does have a presence in Georgia. They own Fabric.com in Kennesaw. Anyway, this new law took away the nexus requirement, from what I understood. I agree, I don't know how they will enforce it for the smaller retailers. I also don't know why the tax is set at 8% which is different from the local sales tax conventions. As I used to work for an industrial distributor with a large internet presence, you don't want to mess with the sales tax laws, especially if you have a presence in the state as the tax auditors can make your life miserable or shut you down.
You can't just legislate away the nexus requirement; it's well-established constitutional law. The articles imply that prior Georgia law required more than just a nexus but an actual retail presence, and that now a mere nexus is sufficient to require online retailers to collect taxes.
I don't doubt charities across the board have lower donations the last few years with less people working and the median household income down 9% since 2008.
You can't automatically discount charitable giving to groups like churches as not helping the poor though. My church growing up for instance has food and clothing drives all the time, fire wood in the winter, a weekly soup kitchen, mission trips to help fix people houses all over the place, a fund dedicated to people coming to the church with monetary needs for utilities or other things, and many other things. Obviously it doesn't make up all of the donations going to the church but you can't completely discount them either.
This link talks about studies showing conservatives donating more and it still being balanced even when taking out religious donations. It also mentions that conservative leaning states have higher rates of volunteering as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
I think most conservatives also want the government help to be more things like job training instead of handouts with no incentive to get off them. No one wants people to be out there starving to death it is just different philosophies on how to fix it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcidSnake
Yeah, but it also depends on what charities conservatives and liberals donate to. Conservatives will always have the upper hand in terms of giving because traditionally, institutions concerned with economic & fiscal power typically tend to bring out the "conservative" in individuals, with a few exceptions like George Soros.
Also, just because conservatives give more to charities doesn't necessarily mean that this giving will have any sort of impact on the less well off, as many local charities concerned with helping the homeless & the indigent have experienced an extreme decrease in donations during this economic downturn.
People will give according to their philosophy and outlook on life. And if my hunches are correct, I have a strong feeling that conservative giving mostly trends towards institutions of power & prestige like churches, think tanks, and political-oriented foundations, NOT smaller regional charities concerned with keeping people from losing their homes, going without good nutritious food on the table, going without heat in winter, or cooling systems during the summer.
It also seems like conservative are more interested in giving with short-term results rather than charitable giving for chronic issues that may not be easily resolved in a short span of time.
And also to note: my sister often donates free hours of tax preparation as part of her affiliation with the National Association of Black Accountants. And there are many people who donate hours upon hours yearly serving holiday meals with Hosea's Feed the Homeless foundation. And yet those "man-hours" aren't tallied up in this equation of liberal charitable giving versus conservative giving.
I don't doubt charities across the board have lower donations the last few years with less people working and the median household income down 9% since 2008.
You can't automatically discount charitable giving to groups like churches as not helping the poor though. My church growing up for instance has food and clothing drives all the time, fire wood in the winter, a weekly soup kitchen, mission trips to help fix people houses all over the place, a fund dedicated to people coming to the church with monetary needs for utilities or other things, and many other things. Obviously it doesn't make up all of the donations going to the church but you can't completely discount them either.
This link talks about studies showing conservatives donating more and it still being balanced even when taking out religious donations. It also mentions that conservative leaning states have higher rates of volunteering as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
.
And yet the reality is, the churches have been very piecemeal at best in their efforts to stem this rampant homelessness and poverty.
Not all communities have the type of resources to funnel to churches to serve the needy on a large scale. And in the south where unemployment often rises into the double-digits, it doesn't help that people in high positions of power & influence are practicing this cruel form of "starve the beast" politics...all the while only giving to the charities that fit into their narrow parochial bias filter on life.
Right now Georgia's businesses is sitting on $42 billion dollars of unspent wealth...while our fellow Georgians are starving. Not only is that a shame, I dare say that it is a deprivation of human economic justice. Trickle-down economics is a total bunch of bullcrap...always has been, always will be.
I think most conservatives also want the government help to be more things like job training instead of handouts with no incentive to get off them. No one wants people to be out there starving to death it is just different philosophies on how to fix it.
That's what you think. But the reality is job programs are being cut all over the place, from the Technical schools to the prison, where it's vital that prisoners who truly want to help themselves on the road to rehabilitation are being hampered from doing so. And what good is the job training if companies are not hiring or won't hire people for many different reasons, such as being out of the workforce too long, or being over 40 years of age?
Philosophies don't amount to diddly-squat if people are out tossed out on the street now because of circumstances not of their own making...such as layoffs and offshoring of jobs.
Just another main point from the Acid-man
Last edited by AcidSnake; 10-07-2012 at 09:15 PM..
We need more state revenues. For what seems like at least the sixth year in a row now, the state keeps asking education--and more recently primarily higher education--to make cuts. It's really getting down to ridiculous levels now, where universities are being asked to cut basic supplies like paper for printing quizzes/tests in the classroom. On top of the furloughs and salary reductions and increasing class sizes and reductions in financial assistance for students, I can't see how the state can reasonably expect our universities to function as effectively going forward and compete with other states and international schools.
So, yes, we need to raise taxes. I do think the online tax is one way to help increase revenues, and I think it's reasonable to say that it does make the marketplace a bit more fair/competitive for our in-state stores.
The issue I have is why are online retailers being taxed an exhorbitant rate? That's goes beyond a tax. And if the one being taxed has no representation, there are some issues here that could be constitutional in nature.
Aside, I doubt the tax money will EVER go toward education. With the current attitudes many officials of a certain political party have, "government schools" are evil and we should just do away with them. Need money to go to college? Ask your parents for a loan, so said Mitt Romney.
Why would we want an educated people? That's such an evil European socialist idea.
I shop online A LOT. Particularly since shopping around here is darned near impossible. (For whatever reason, local retailers never seem to have what I need when I need it. And given the way this town is so spread out, going to the next location isn't going to happen. I'm not schlepping from The Forum to Phipps with a toddler in tow, especially when I can simply point and click and have it at my door in a day or two.) I bought my entire nursery online, primarily from Amazon, and do most of my Christmas and back to school shopping there.
I'm not necessarily averse to paying sales tax on online purchases. I understand how crucial they are, but I don't think most people shop online to avoid sales tax. I know formyself I do it to avoid having to run all over the Atlanta metro every time I need to buy something! Retailers have responded to Amazon by cutting inventory, of all things, and that sends me running away even more quickly. So I don't think adding the sales tax will help locals at all. I don't mind paying more for good customer service and advice from a knowledgeable sales staff. That's something you don't typically get online, and unfortunately, you don't get it in most stores either. We bought a dishwasher recently at Sears. It cost more, but the salesman was so helpful and well informed that there was no way we were leaving without that dishwasher. And it wasn't high pressure either. He simply had a copy of Consumer Reports so we could see reviews of the various models he had. We bought a refrigerator frim the same guy last year and always ask for him. This time he rewarded our loyalty with free delivery and installation.
Amazon is eating their lunch because they have something locals don't have endless inventory. However, if locals provided better customer service they could hold their own. But they won't do that. My guy at Sears has bern selling appliances for more than twenty years. Most of these stores hire part time, inexperienced staff that donn't know the product and could not possibly care less. And that's why they will fail. God knows if Amazon offers same day delivery I will never go to a store again.
Location: ๏̯͡๏﴿ Gwinnett-That's a Civil Matter-County
2,118 posts, read 6,384,737 times
Reputation: 3548
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb
I shop online A LOT. Particularly since shopping around here is darned near impossible. (For whatever reason, local retailers never seem to have what I need when I need it. And given the way this town is so spread out, going to the next location isn't going to happen. I'm not schlepping from The Forum to Phipps with a toddler in tow, especially when I can simply point and click and have it at my door in a day or two.) I bought my entire nursery online, primarily from Amazon, and do most of my Christmas and back to school shopping there.
I'm not necessarily averse to paying sales tax on online purchases. I understand how crucial they are, but I don't think most people shop online to avoid sales tax. I know formyself I do it to avoid having to run all over the Atlanta metro every time I need to buy something! Retailers have responded to Amazon by cutting inventory, of all things, and that sends me running away even more quickly. So I don't think adding the sales tax will help locals at all. I don't mind paying more for good customer service and advice from a knowledgeable sales staff. That's something you don't typically get online, and unfortunately, you don't get it in most stores either. We bought a dishwasher recently at Sears. It cost more, but the salesman was so helpful and well informed that there was no way we were leaving without that dishwasher. And it wasn't high pressure either. He simply had a copy of Consumer Reports so we could see reviews of the various models he had. We bought a refrigerator frim the same guy last year and always ask for him. This time he rewarded our loyalty with free delivery and installation.
Amazon is eating their lunch because they have something locals don't have endless inventory. However, if locals provided better customer service they could hold their own. But they won't do that. My guy at Sears has bern selling appliances for more than twenty years. Most of these stores hire part time, inexperienced staff that donn't know the product and could not possibly care less. And that's why they will fail. God knows if Amazon offers same day delivery I will never go to a store again.
This isn't about saving local businesses. It's about making up for lost revenue while ensuring that middle and lower income citizens continue to bear an exponentially larger part of that burden while the corporations and wealthy continue to pay less and less of that burden.
This isn't about saving local businesses. It's about making up for lost revenue while ensuring that middle and lower income citizens continue to bear an exponentially larger part of that burden while the corporations and wealthy continue to pay less and less of that burden.
People will still shop online.
I understand being against sales taxes, but in the event that you're going to have a sales tax, is there any real justification for online retailers not having to collect it? I guess it's valid to say that you oppose all sales taxes, but people don't seem to want to come out and say that.
Also, I haven't seen anything to justify that lower income folks spend a disproportionately large chunk of their income in online shopping. Middle class I guess I can buy, but lower class folks sometimes don't have good access to the internet, and often don't use credit cards.
The fact that it's 8% does bewilder me. I would think they would have it set to the lowest county rate in the state (which I believe is 5%).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess in the case of my county, they're held in the local state prison. 
