Y2HH

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:00 PM) Comrade Fatty is on a rant again. So if you work for a bank you are on his list. Of course you can distract him with the well placed donut to escape. I love how that rich jerk pretends to be "one of the common folk" at these rallies and they let him. If I was a poor union worker, I'd be like, hey fat jerk face looking for free publicity (because that's what he's really doing), get the f*** out of here you legitimate rally hijacking twat.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 10:58 AM) StrangeSox is harmless and completely partisan. Fixed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 10:44 AM) This assumes that people are wealthy or poor due mainly to merit and ability. That's a pretty s*** assumption. Or maybe the assumption is that the ultra-rich are unscrupulous, immoral bastards who will backstab their way right back to the top, convincing everyone below to fight each other while they laugh once again? Also, I want to be very clear here: I'd never advocate for simply redistributing wealth equally per capita. I don't eschew private enterprise. I'm not a communist here, even if I've hyperbolically approached that line lately with some of the rhetoric. I repeat, what I predicted, would happen, almost to a T.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 10:40 AM) I just stumbled upon a picture of you online.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 10:37 AM) This is eerily similar to "something called 'volcano monitoring'"--->"alaskan volcano erupts" But hey, cutting NOAA, NSF, NIH and introducing creationist anti-evolution bills on a yearly basis isn't anti-science or anti-intellectual! It's Pro-Skepticism! ...and you've jumped the shark. Gratz, Fonzie.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 10:27 AM) In this thread, we learn that the solution to poverty is to give the wealthy more money. Sorry for the snark, but this is what you're arguing here. We must continue to give tax breaks to the wealthy so that they can sustain their record profits. If we don't, they'll simply raise prices because demand is inelastic (so why not raise prices now?!). This will hurt the poor not through direct fuel prices since they don't have cars but indirect price increases of goods which they can barely afford now. It's unconscionable to think of simply subsidizing the poor and doing something to fix the wealth gap. Do you want to know the sad truth of this? If we fixed everything...I mean everything, every single complaint you could possibly have about wealth...I'm talking COMPLETE social justice here, and took all the money in the US, and divided it equally to every citizen... Within 10 short years, 95% of the people that are broke now...would be broke again... And 95% of the people that are ultra rich now...would be ultra rich again. The other 5% would be the few individuals in-between that actually make something of their opportunity. Now, you can dismiss what I'm saying all you want...but it'd happen. It's as sure as death and taxes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 09:39 AM) Then why does the IMF disagree with pretty much everything in your post? I'm not looking to punish energy companies. I'm simply looking to stop subsidizing their record profits. Most of the subsidy benefits goes to the top quintile. The bottom three combined barely eclipse their share. And, if you're truly concerned about the poor and middle class, we can shift the subsidies to them instead of relying on the completely broken idea of trickle-down economics. No amount of apologia changes that the data do no support any of your claims here. Even logically, it makes no sense. Because if taking subsidies away from the wealthy doesn't hurt them, well, it must not be helping them. So why are they necessary? The IMF can disagree with reality all it wants...if they lose these subsidies, they're not going to just swallow the losses and call it a day. They WILL pass these losses onto the consumers, not their shareholders.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 09:11 AM) http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/.../06/picture.htm Hmmm.... But I guess you're right ss2k5, the only way for the poor to continue to scrape by is for billionaires to get billions in tax subsidies. I know, the world is so unfair...but in the end, the very politicians that claim to be looking out for you and I do nothing about these subsidies when they have the chance to do it. We can go back and forth on this all day long...in the end, the politicians aren't going to change it, no matter how unfair it is. Congress/Senate/Presidents are all rich people these days...in and of itself, that's part of the problem. They're not removing these subsidies...because they'd be removing them from themselves. When lowly aldermen make more money and have better benefits than most of the people you know in the private sector, there's a problem.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 09:22 AM) I'm not pretending otherwise. But people also take advantage by shopping around at birck-and-mortars and then go order it cheaper online. And obviously, for cheaper stuff, the advantage is minimal. This does happen, but only when online purchases save them hundreds of dollars, say on a television set. In those cases, it's not taxes holding the brick and mortar back, it's the fact that they're charging 2000$ for a TV that can be purchased online for 1500$. Taxes be damned in a situation like this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:58 AM) The current no-sales-tax scheme also gives a strong competitive advantage to online retailers vs. in-state businesses. This advantage is crowed about, but is a total non-advantage. Online retailers have to ship and buy shipping insurance, something the local retailers do not have to do, but they neglect to talk about it...because it upends their gripe. Also, keep in mind that when you buy something online, you have to wait for it, whereas at a regular store, you not only get to see what you are buying before you buy it, and play with it, but you get instant gratification of leaving the store with the item, without having to wait to use it. This also makes returns and exchanges much easier, another advantage they forget they have when they discuss online vs brick and mortar. This cannot be dismissed as a non-advantage...there are plenty of things I buy online, but I wouldn't bother if I knew I could drive to the local retailer and get it immediately...unless of course we are talking a cost savings of hundreds here, which we aren't. There are advantages to both and disadvantages to both, let's not pretend otherwise.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:39 AM) Isn't the problem that a lot of consumers are illegally avoiding taxes that they should really be paying? I won't act like I don't do that myself--on big ticket items, sales tax vs. shipping definitely factors in. But it's a legit problem. Easily rectified if they revisit the law and amend it in light of Internet e-commerce, so it's something all 50 states have to comply with. As it stands, since these companies are essentially "servers", they can just move them to whichever states do not tax them, and re-incorporate in that state.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:38 AM) I won't disagree that Democrats are generally spineless cowards just as beholden to their corporate masters as Republicans. See and I think this is part of the problem. They have this kind of two ring circus going on, where on the public front, they spew hate for one another...but privately, they use each other to get things done/not get things done through back room deals, etc... It's the millionaires club, all pretending to be on our side... It's like we are watching this two-ring circus between the parties, thinking they're the show...but if you pull the camera back further, it's actually them watching us, and we're the show. :/

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:30 AM) Grow? If the problem is "we need to reduce fuel prices because it would impact the poor and middle class too much," why does the solution have to be "give money to the super-wealthy so that they can reduce costs slightly while still making record profits?" Why does that require less government than "give money to the people who need it?" I'm not talking about spending any more money here. I'm talking about not subsidizing profits for the wealthy. Well if they do need to hand out new subsidies, they'd have to hire people to evaluate how much to give, who needs to receive it, etc. You don't believe they'd have the people they already hired do this, do you? No, they'd hire more! That's what they do! For every new project, new funds are allocated, and depending on how much is allocated, they spend it...otherwise they don't get it again! As for removing subsidies for the wealthy, we've heard them talking about this for how long now? 20+ years? Whatever the case may be, they've shown that they will never actually do it. In light of the recent super-majority in the house/senate for 2 years and no action was taken to remove these subsidies that the democrats claim to hate so much...I beg the question...why'd they wait until they knew they couldn't get it done to try? I'm sick of giving them all a pass on stuff like this. The had the opportunity to do exactly this...and didn't. To pretend they did nothing but work on HCR is bulls***, too...since they passed COUNTLESS laws while holding that super majority, but these subsidy cuts...nothing. Not a peep. But now it's suddenly in the news.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:26 AM) I actually agree about 50 states. I can understand the argument that internet product sales have artificially eaten into sales tax base, and I'd be OK with this - but all the states have to do it (or most at least). As I understand it as of now, 4 or 5 do, with another handful considering it. Right, if it's going to be done, it has to be done properly, as to avoid total abandonment of a state, which is what occurred here. And it's sad that small non-profits like yours get hurt by this. I guarantee it didn't affect Amazon or Overstock whatsoever.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:22 AM) Cutting off every cent in energy company subsidies would require a new agency? No, to distribute the subsidies to low income people.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:20 AM) However, the decision that you're arguing is a federal decision. I'm not arguing the decision, YOU are. The US Supreme Court made this rule -- and the you bring up NY for some reason. I'm not against such a tax, but it has to be done in all 50 states to keep things even, what was done here by the Gov. was create a void and cause Amazon and Overstock to just abandon IL. If this was enacted in all 50 states, they wouldn't be able to just abandon the state, but it's not...and they did. So he accomplished nothing as of now but to screw over a lot of small businesses, like I said from the start. I don't even know what you are arguing here...you sound pretty anti-small business, however. You don't seem to understand that, in effect, he accomplished NOTHING here other than hurting small business affiliates, as he STILL collects 0$ in taxes from Amazon and Overstock, which account for about 99% of online sales in this state.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:14 AM) Damn it, you're right. I guess we just need to keep shoveling money to the very wealthy so they can pass back a small percentage on to consumers with lower gas prices! Nah, we need to continue growing a government we *already* can't afford, instead. Right?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:14 AM) Except for the fact that in the state of NY, the courts rules that Amazon had to collect sales tax, and it did. Um, you realize I'm talking about IL here, right? Last I checked, we aren't under NY law, nor do we fall under the NY supreme courts rules.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:08 AM) So a business that doesn't have a physical presence in Illinois and therefore doesn't employ many people in Illinois should get a significant taxpayer subsidy from the state of Illinois? You act like I made the rules...talk to the supreme court of the united states, mister. And they're not receiving any "subsidy", they're not here, therefore they don't pay state taxes, just like the supreme court ruled they shouldn't have to do. Now if they courts want to go back and revisit this law in light of the Internet and online commerce, by all means, do that...but right now, all this does is cut off small businesses from being affiliated with Amazon, Overstock, etc, as they're not forced to play by the rules Quinn sets. As a consumer, I can still buy from Amazon.com and avoid all IL sales tax, but my business has no chance of going to an IL business now. As for brick and mortars complaining that this merely levels the playing field...no it doesn't. I can physically go to a brick and mortar and get instant gratification of having said item immediately, which most people will pay a premium to do. For example, I can order an iPad2 online today, but I'd rather go to a Target/Walmart and pick one up, if I can, because then I don't have to wait to play with my new toy!

And this is why its controversial: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that companies without a physical presence in a state aren't required to collect state sales taxes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:03 AM) Why should non-internet based businesses in Illinois subsidize Amazon.com? Amazon.com doesn't have a physical presence in IL, that's why...it's taxing a virtual entity (which is controversial BTW)...and this is besides the point. The law did nothing but f*** over the people who sell things through Amazon.com, etc...since they all just got dumped by the company. In effect, he STILL collects nothing from Amazon, but now a bunch of small businesses got totally screwed over.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:02 AM) Although more money has been spent on transit development...consumption of fossil fuel energy has gone up, not down. Give that time, you cant get nor expect these results overnight...but to claim we are doing the opposite is just untrue in every regard. We ARE making progress in this regard, from wind to solar power to hybrid vehicles, and it's catching on fast.

Gov. Pat Quinn signs bill into law, prompting Amazon.com and Overstock.com to say they will sever all ties with affiliates in state to avoid incurring such taxes. Great idea, Quinn, you f***ing tax happy jackass...all the businesses that relied on Amazon.com and Overstock.com just got f***ed over by a bill you signed, and will produce almost nothing now.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 05:56 AM) Wow, we trust an injury over team management in deciding what is best for a player. And you don't?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 07:51 AM) Everything discussed so far of course essentially argues that the only solution is a large, nation-scale effort to stop using fossil fuels. I think we are in the midst of doing exactly that.