You folks don't get it. It has nothing to do with what is good for business or good logical reasoning we try to do here. The politicians need more money to by more votes, give themselves raises and all the other stuff that gets me upset.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
That's one of the great things about working on Tek gear. A point of sanity in the midst of other.
--- In TekScopes@yahoogroups.com, Peter Gottlieb <hpnpilot@...> wrote:
Wouldn't it be logical if spending were cut while holding tax revenues steady
that the deficit would decrease?
On 5/10/2013 10:42 PM, Artekmedia wrote:
The sequester is certainly proving that point , the deficit is currently
projected to drop this year, the economy is growing at a modest pace and the
country didn't fall back into recession ...imagine that .
On 5/10/2013 9:25 PM, J. L. Trantham wrote:
The government does not need any more money. In fact, they need to have less
and be forced to change their budgeting policy to a `real world' method
rather than `base line'.
*From:*TekScopes@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TekScopes@yahoogroups.com] *On
Behalf Of *DanielW
*Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2013 8:58 PM
*Subject:* [TekScopes] Re: OT: Petition to veto the Internet sales tax bill
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how small sellers on Ebay would be
affected by this: as pointed out before, there's a $1 million/year threshold.
Some guy selling his car on Ebay, or someone with a side business selling
$100/month worth of some obscure item are not required to collect and remit
sales taxes, as these are well below the threshold. The problem for Ebay is
that they aren't just a collection of regular people selling their junk
online like in 1998; these days, that's a pretty small part of their
business, and most of their business comes from high-volume sellers (which
are still small businesses) who most likely do sell over $1M/year worth of
merchandise. $1M/year isn't very much; a 2-5 person business can do that much
revenue easily. Ebay's proposal to change the limit to $10M/year makes a lot
of sense, and would probably exempt a large number of their sellers.
What would make this sales tax bill much more palatable is if they made it so
that out-of-state sellers only needed to collect sales taxes for the other
*states* that their customers live in, and that's it. If their customers are
subject to additional county or city taxes, then too bad. That way, sellers
would only need to keep track of 51 sales tax districts (plus perhaps Guam,
VI, PR, etc.), not 9600 of them. Dealing with sales taxes for 50 states + DC
isn't that hard, and making it so they only need to remit once a year would
be helpful too (except maybe their home state). Plus, about 5 states don't
have any sales tax, so it'd only be about 46 checks you'd have to mail at the
end of the year.
--- In TekScopes@yahoogroups.com <mailto:TekScopes%40yahoogroups.com>,
Shirley Mï¿½rquez Dï¿½lcey <mark@ <mailto:mark@>> wrote:
eBay is in a curious bind with this. Some eBay sellers are selling off
personal property and not doing it as a business; such transactions are not
subject to the Federal income tax, nor to sales taxes in most places unless
the personal property happens to be a car. But other eBay sellers are doing
it as a business. So the sale of the same good by two different sellers in
the same town could have different tax implications, and it's hard to
figure how eBay could possibly sort that out.
PO Box 175
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3162/5814 - Release Date: 05/10/13