On Nov 26, 11:48*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:07:10 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:





On Nov 26, 8:27*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:46:53 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 26, 6:14*pm, "
wrote:
On 26 Nov 2011 01:30:59 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

You (NY media) get a very different story than the rest of the country.
Town had to let go police officers, cut library hours, and a whole lot
more because of Christie. *Both daughter and son are high school teachers.
But we have already gone over the problem whether good teachers are under-
or overpaid.

Boo hoo! *You're *BROKE*. *Deal with that first!

Exactly what they are wanting to do. *Glad to see you finally agree..

That's what Cristie wants to do. *Han, and the rest of you lefties want to
whine about how "unfair" it all is to the poor unions. *Suck it up, bucko

Know what happens when you make ASS-U-mptions? *You make an ASS out of
YOURSELF! *And you just made a very big ASS-U-mption that was totally
wrong.

You can lie to yourself but the rest of the world has an IQ 3

You don't!

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:15:07 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 26, 11:48*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:07:10 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:





On Nov 26, 8:27*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:46:53 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 26, 6:14*pm, "
wrote:
On 26 Nov 2011 01:30:59 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

You (NY media) get a very different story than the rest of the country.
Town had to let go police officers, cut library hours, and a whole lot
more because of Christie. *Both daughter and son are high school teachers.
But we have already gone over the problem whether good teachers are under-
or overpaid.

Boo hoo! *You're *BROKE*. *Deal with that first!

Exactly what they are wanting to do. *Glad to see you finally agree.

That's what Cristie wants to do. *Han, and the rest of you lefties want to
whine about how "unfair" it all is to the poor unions. *Suck it up, bucko

Know what happens when you make ASS-U-mptions? *You make an ASS out of
YOURSELF! *And you just made a very big ASS-U-mption that was totally
wrong.

You can lie to yourself but the rest of the world has an IQ 3

You don't!

There you go, lying to yourself again. Don't worry, we're just laughing at
you.

Well, most of the rest of the world has an IQ 3.

Thanks!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

There you go, lying to yourself again. Don't worry, we're just
laughing at you.


Whoever laughs last, laughs best!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Nov 27, 3:37*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:15:07 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:





On Nov 26, 11:48*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:07:10 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 26, 8:27*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:46:53 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 26, 6:14*pm, "
wrote:
On 26 Nov 2011 01:30:59 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

You (NY media) get a very different story than the rest of the country.
Town had to let go police officers, cut library hours, and a whole lot
more because of Christie. *Both daughter and son are high school teachers.
But we have already gone over the problem whether good teachers are under-
or overpaid.

Boo hoo! *You're *BROKE*. *Deal with that first!

Exactly what they are wanting to do. *Glad to see you finally agree.

That's what Cristie wants to do. *Han, and the rest of you lefties want to
whine about how "unfair" it all is to the poor unions. *Suck it up, bucko

Know what happens when you make ASS-U-mptions? *You make an ASS out of
YOURSELF! *And you just made a very big ASS-U-mption that was totally
wrong.

You can lie to yourself but the rest of the world has an IQ 3

You don't!

There you go, lying to yourself again. *Don't worry, we're just laughing at
you.-

You must suffer from a multiple personality disorder since you are the
only one laughing.

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:14:08 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 26, 8:07*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
BobR wrote:

Then your issue was with the local vendor and only the local vendor.
That doesn't change the fact that buying on the internet from out of
state vendors that don't collect the sales tax is giving an unfair
advantage to the internet vendor. *Amazing that your internet vendor
in state was able to calculate the tax.

I reject the notion of "unfair advantage." Passing tax laws to interfere
with the marketplace is a terrible idea. It wasn't too many years ago that
some states had "fair trade" laws that prohibited stores from selling at the
price they wanted, such as a "loss leader." New Jersey, and its law
prohibiting self-serve gas stations is another example. As a consequence,
motorists in New Jersey have to pay more than those in neighboring states
for gasoline.

No, the absence of a sales tax on internet sales is a "competitive"
advantage, not an "unfair" one. Let the local store compete on location and
immediate sales. Plus, there's nothing to stop the local store from offering
their products on a web site. All they need is a 12-year old male to be
their webmaster.

I must totally disagree, it is a totally unfair competitive advantage
that can't be make up by setting up and selling their products on the
web.

Let's see, the sales tax advantage ranges from 0 to 9 percent,
thereabouts. The typical price advantage shopping online ranges from
nothing to 30 percent or more, with 15 to 25 percent being most common.
Sounds to me like the price advantage dominates the tax advantage.
Moreover i like being able to trade off have it now versus better price,
and mucking with the taxes would not really change that. It is just a tax
grab.

Thus: not that important, let alone clearly not unfair.

?-)

BobR wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:07 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
BobR wrote:

Then your issue was with the local vendor and only the local vendor.
That doesn't change the fact that buying on the internet from out of
state vendors that don't collect the sales tax is giving an unfair
advantage to the internet vendor. Amazing that your internet vendor
in state was able to calculate the tax.
I reject the notion of "unfair advantage." Passing tax laws to interfere
with the marketplace is a terrible idea. It wasn't too many years ago that
some states had "fair trade" laws that prohibited stores from selling at the
price they wanted, such as a "loss leader." New Jersey, and its law
prohibiting self-serve gas stations is another example. As a consequence,
motorists in New Jersey have to pay more than those in neighboring states
for gasoline.

No, the absence of a sales tax on internet sales is a "competitive"
advantage, not an "unfair" one. Let the local store compete on location and
immediate sales. Plus, there's nothing to stop the local store from offering
their products on a web site. All they need is a 12-year old male to be
their webmaster.

I must totally disagree, it is a totally unfair competitive advantage
that can't be make up by setting up and selling their products on the
web.
Wake up; it is NOT "unfair".
Why?
A local store, by setting up a website creates a lower cost "channel"
for sales, the (extra) profits from which can be used to lower in-store
prices and thus be MORE competitive.

On Nov 30, 11:37*pm, Robert Baer wrote:
BobR wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:07 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
BobR wrote:

Then your issue was with the local vendor and only the local vendor.
That doesn't change the fact that buying on the internet from out of
state vendors that don't collect the sales tax is giving an unfair
advantage to the internet vendor. *Amazing that your internet vendor
in state was able to calculate the tax.
I reject the notion of "unfair advantage." Passing tax laws to interfere
with the marketplace is a terrible idea. It wasn't too many years ago that
some states had "fair trade" laws that prohibited stores from selling at the
price they wanted, such as a "loss leader." New Jersey, and its law
prohibiting self-serve gas stations is another example. As a consequence,
motorists in New Jersey have to pay more than those in neighboring states
for gasoline.

No, the absence of a sales tax on internet sales is a "competitive"
advantage, not an "unfair" one. Let the local store compete on location and
immediate sales. Plus, there's nothing to stop the local store from offering
their products on a web site. All they need is a 12-year old male to be
their webmaster.

I must totally disagree, it is a totally unfair competitive advantage
that can't be make up by setting up and selling their products on the
web.

* *Wake up; it is NOT "unfair".
* *Why?
* *A local store, by setting up a website creates a lower cost "channel"
for sales, the (extra) profits from which can be used to lower in-store
prices and thus be MORE competitive.-

Only if the local store makes all of its sales outside of its own
state, assuming the store is in a state with sales tax. Any and all
sales within the state rather from the store front or from internet
sales must have sales tax calculated for the sales area. If the
retailer has a location in any of the states where sales tax is
collected, it must then calculate for that state as well.

This is the reason Amazon has gotten in trouble in a number of
states. In Texas they have been hit with a $291 million dollar claim
for uncollected sales tax because they have setup a distribution
warehouse in the state and as such have a physical presense in the
state requiring them to collect sales tax on all sales in the state
rather those sales result in goods shipped from their warehouse or
from out of state. California has decided to impose the same
intrepretation on Amazon and is seeking millions as well. Amazon
thought it could sidestep the laws and now is finding that it might be
better to accept a common approach rather than risk huge penalties.

On 28 Nov 2011 12:15:36 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

There you go, lying to yourself again. Don't worry, we're just
laughing at you.


Whoever laughs last, laughs best!

HaHaHaHaHaHaHa! You're funny!

BobR wrote:
On Nov 30, 11:37 pm, Robert Baer wrote:
BobR wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:07 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
BobR wrote:
Then your issue was with the local vendor and only the local vendor.
That doesn't change the fact that buying on the internet from out of
state vendors that don't collect the sales tax is giving an unfair
advantage to the internet vendor. Amazing that your internet vendor
in state was able to calculate the tax.
I reject the notion of "unfair advantage." Passing tax laws to interfere
with the marketplace is a terrible idea. It wasn't too many years ago that
some states had "fair trade" laws that prohibited stores from selling at the
price they wanted, such as a "loss leader." New Jersey, and its law
prohibiting self-serve gas stations is another example. As a consequence,
motorists in New Jersey have to pay more than those in neighboring states
for gasoline.
No, the absence of a sales tax on internet sales is a "competitive"
advantage, not an "unfair" one. Let the local store compete on location and
immediate sales. Plus, there's nothing to stop the local store from offering
their products on a web site. All they need is a 12-year old male to be
their webmaster.
I must totally disagree, it is a totally unfair competitive advantage
that can't be make up by setting up and selling their products on the
web.
Wake up; it is NOT "unfair".
Why?
A local store, by setting up a website creates a lower cost "channel"
for sales, the (extra) profits from which can be used to lower in-store
prices and thus be MORE competitive.-

Only if the local store makes all of its sales outside of its own
state, assuming the store is in a state with sales tax. Any and all
sales within the state rather from the store front or from internet
sales must have sales tax calculated for the sales area. If the
retailer has a location in any of the states where sales tax is
collected, it must then calculate for that state as well.

This is the reason Amazon has gotten in trouble in a number of
states. In Texas they have been hit with a $291 million dollar claim
for uncollected sales tax because they have setup a distribution
warehouse in the state and as such have a physical presense in the
state requiring them to collect sales tax on all sales in the state
rather those sales result in goods shipped from their warehouse or
from out of state. California has decided to impose the same
intrepretation on Amazon and is seeking millions as well. Amazon
thought it could sidestep the laws and now is finding that it might be
better to accept a common approach rather than risk huge penalties.

"ONLY"??? Bull..NO sales people to pay makes for a large savings;
sales tax is not a part of THAT equation..