Thinking Right

By Shark Sammich

November 26, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this

Jim axed me:

1) How has the Internet changed your Christmas shopping?

Made it a bit less stressful. I still like to go to brick-and-mortar stores when I can, but I do it less and less with every passing year.

And 2) If a proposal is made in this year’s General Assembly to tax online purchases, would you object? Should online purchases be treated the same as in-store purchases?

No, and yes. I don’t think they’ll do it, though. Republicans have no balls, and they’re terrified of taxes.

By jbmlaw

November 26, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. I am blessed in that the only Christmas shopping I am obliged to accomplish is that for benefit of Mrs. jbmlaw, and under normal circumstances I am told what to buy and where to buy it. The presence of the internet has no particular effect on my Christmas shopping. (Mrs. jbmlaw prefers to buy her books at Borders rather than at Amazon.com.) The larger question, however, requires me to honestly answer that I purchase regularly and substantially (by my standards, anyway – I am pretty cheap and don’t spend too much) via internet.

Shall we terminate the Federal preclusion against state sales taxation of internet transactions? I cannot rationalize the preclusion, except to the extent that it may prevent grasping states such as California or New York from taxing purchases of buyers outside those states. Seems to be this ought to be an issue of simple Federalism. So much for a non-political topic.

By Aquagirl

November 26, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

Thanks for the break, Jim. But I’m sure the crazy one-note folk will be out soon. They can’t help themselves.

I shop for a lot of things—not just Christmas purchases—online now. It’s a good way to support small businesses, and avoid Atlanta traffic.

Taxing internet sales would be a gawdawful mess. With so many levels of local taxes, how could internet-based retailers keep up?

By Glenn

November 26, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

Gutt morgan.

FLASH: As we hunt-and-peck, Putin is Walessing and Haveling Kasparov, the chessplaying pro-Democracy leader of Russia. Blood in streets…

[Rudy&Gary 08]

By Mid-South Philosopher

November 26, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim.

I do quite a bit of online buying. It makes the process much more pleasant. Plus, I have reached the lazy stage in life.

With respect to taxation, I am in favor of NO tax being levied without the repeal of another. With respect to government spending, I am in favor of NO expenditure without the reduction of another.

Of course, government suffers from the Langoliers Syndrome. It eats and eats and eats and eats and eats and eats and eats. Then it decides it is hungry.

Don’t re-elect anyone.

By Curious Observer

November 26, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this

I see no rationale for excluding Internet purchases from state taxation. In fact, some companies operating physical stores in Georgia and also offering goods by Internet already add Georgia sales tax to on-line purchases. The only reason that Georgia will never enact a sales tax on Internet purchases is precisely the phobia that Republicans have about tax increases.

And yes, more and more I’m shopping via Internet. In that way, I don’t have to put up with the old mark-it-up, then mark-it-down-to-regular-price, then call-it-a-sale routine. In addition, I get a broader selection than I would by shopping at a physical store. Finally, by shopping via Internet I get the best price without having to comparison shop at ten different physical stores.

Thanks for the break from political topics. I suspect, however, that TFTT will find some way to introduce “illegal Mexican leeches” and “ebonics-spouting blacks” to the topic. We do need, after all, to be able to accommodate the mentally ill in blogs.

By Van

November 26, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this

Sales tax on the Internet purchases?

I keep going back to Article 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

If I buy a product on line from a company in New York, who isn’t in Georgia, there can not be any sales tax.

Like now with catalog sales, unless that company has a presence in Georgia, no sales tax.

By AmVet

November 26, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this

Like many men, the very thought of going to a mall almost anytime of the year, much less in the next 30 days is a very unsettling prospect.

So to that extent, shopping on line is a blessing, Tiny Tim. And as to the second question - read my lips, no new Internet taxes!

With that said, the feeding frenzy by the average American consumer, has to me, always been very strange. And add Santa and outright avarice into the mix and the insanity factor goes off the charts.

People get up at 2AM to go buy junior the latest gaming console? Or save $3 on a pair of socks!!!

I understand that certain vested elements of our society can and will inundate us with the message that commands us to all be good corpulent buying addicts and send those credit card balances sky rocketing, all in the name of baby Jesus’ love and giving.

And if “The Internets” can facilitate that, so much the better,

But as Jethro Tull sang, “The Christmas spirit is not what you drink.”

By Jeff

November 26, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this

I shop online whenever possible - heck, I even use online banking to check my checking account rather than going to the bank or ATM.

My primary reason for shopping online is that as long as I can get online, I can shop. I don’t have to worry about traffic or long lines, and I don’t have to worry about someone threatening to stab me (as happened in the Circuit City in Acworth Friday, reportedly). I can shop in peace, at my own speed, and as comfortable as I choose to be.

My wife, T, however, prefers brick and mortar. Somehow she thinks her credit card information is safer there. Me, I work in computing and understand online business, so I know that the online stores are going to be FAR more careful with my information than a brick and mortar.

BTW: NOBODY has Wii’s!!! This is the first item I have EVER found that cannot be found even online!

As far as taxes go: Whose local tax do you use? Buyer or seller? That is just ONE of the MANY issues that would have to be resolved before I could even CONSIDER allowing online sales tax. (Even then I would be pre-disposed to not favoring any additional taxation.)

By Glenn

November 26, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

In answer to that Wootenquiry which Sharky answered, my own answer is that I find it really pleasant and economical to do my Xmas intel via the Net, and then:

Step 2: Shop as locally as practicable as per price; and

Step 3 [optional]: Return to the Net for purchase if the item’s not available locally at a comparatively economical price.

What fuzzes up this process is my fuzzy economics, which takes into account

(a) my keeping a kosher shopping list, inasmuch as I haven’t intentionally bought Chinese (except for porcelain and silk) for 18 years; and

(b) all the subjective factors which skew in favor of locals to the degree to which they

• give better service, or
• sling shot at the big-boxes, or
• are a mom-and-pop owned by sturdy locals, or
• are somehow morally deserving.

Now my adherence Levittical may be so eccentric as to be good for nothing but a dissertation proposal for a Ph.D. in Freakonomics, except that over the years I’ve met an increasing number of people who keep kosher.

I even married one.

Who knows, one day we may take over this country, and then what chance would Beijing stand?

Boycott the ‘08 Beijing Games!

And…

[Rudy 08]

By ron

November 26, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

By @@

November 26, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

Wow, the retail numbers look great Jim. In the black must have the naysayers seeing red.

Oops…Sorry! You wanted answers to two questions. Alrighty then.

I window shop online but only to avoid excessive driving from store to store. I’m not inclined to buy a “pig in a poke” which is why I don’t vote the dem ticket. Gotta know what I’m getting…gotta feel it…gotta see it.

Oops…Sorry again!

Tax online internet purchases? Yes I’d object. Good grief, I’m saving on gas, fighting against global warming! What more do they want from me?

Oh yea…money, money and more money.

By Dusty

November 26, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Well, hey,

I’m not much help to Jim Wooten today. As to his questions, the answers are NO and… NO (according to the Constitution—Thank U, Van).

Before you think I am Scrooge or the Grinch, may I explain? My children are beyond the “toy stage” and too old for me to decide on their choices, much less the right size for anything. So I give them what they really enjoy…MONEY!!..for which I am rewarded hugs and kisses in the delight of a little (very little) affluence.

They are all thrifty (as taught by their penny pinching mom). So all of us are pleased.

Enjoy your shopping, online, in house, out of town or the farmer’s market. I will think of you as I watch the snowflakes fall (maybe) and dream of a white Christmas with hot chocolate and no hassle.

By Dennis

November 26, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes, “2) If a proposal is made in this year’s General Assembly to tax online purchases, would you object? Should online purchases be treated the same as in-store purchases?”

Would I object, Yes. I have no objection to tax if it is properly spent.

As an example of improperly “spent”, the ten million dollar “incentive” to develope Jekyll Island with a bunch of high priced condos and other high costs that will benefit the developers, but price the average Georgian out of that market.

I question “The legality and necessity of granting incentives to developers—such as the $10,000,000 rent abatement given to Trammell Crow and Partners for the redevelopment of the Buccaneer Resort—to encourage them to build on prime oceanfront public property.”

(How many homeowners get such an “incentive” to build)?

For those of you who do not know what I’m talking about, it’s the UNNECESSARY development of Jekyll Island to benefit the pocketbooks of private individuals.

This is another mixture of politics and ‘good ole boys’.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I go to Jekyll Island to get AWAY from the “development of prime property”.

THE LOSERS WILL BE THE PEOPLE OF GEORGIA.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Jackie

November 26, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

Taxes on purchases made out-of-state are unconstitutional. As we examine this issue, I would assume the company selling this item had to pay inventory taxes and the like for the item physically being in their warehouse(s). With that in mind, does the seller raise his prices to cover the taxes being paid in his state? Secondly, e-commerce is good for us personally, but, has a tendency to hurt local economies. That puts us all in a tough position.

By Anonymous

November 26, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

The Internet is the solution to malls and traffic. I see no reason to ever deal with “real-world” holiday shopping again.

By doc jones

November 26, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

Better save your pennies Jim, in a few years, the AJC will be out of business, and bloggers like Bi-Danish, and Anonymous will provide all the editorial content and more than anyone wants, for free.

By NO on NeTax

November 26, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

Vote NO against GA state taxes on internet purchases.

Were such a bill introduced intransigently, the leadership in the house of origin should move not to kill the bill but to gut & amend it per expressing statutorily the will of the Governor and Gen. Asm. that no such tax be levied by the state or by any creature or subdivision of the state, expressly including counties and municipalities.

A state tax on internet sales would be yet another form of double taxation. It’s also another example of an unconstitutional state action which is sustainable by our corrupted judiciary.

When you make internet purchases, the state is not a player, much less could it bring anything to the table that is not already taxed or underwritten by taxes.

If it be the pleasure of the American people to shift their economy toward undertaxed services and goods digitally provided, then government will have to do one of the following:

a) shrink;

b) figure out, as always but never, how to do more with less;

c) tax for the sake of sustaining its size.

Should the duly elected representatives of the lovely and great State of Georgia vote for (c) in this case, Jim, then reluctantly I will move to a state that will not so vote.

Sincerely,

Glenn Gilbert Chief Consultant, Assembly Subcommittee on Information Technology, California State Legislature, 1999-2001

By time for the truth

November 26, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

I suppose the deranged sickster peeping tom gets its pop tart bollux/kiddie soft porn off the web. Its so anally and desperately obsessed with yours truly it has to puke up its witless abuse even when I am ‘absent’.

I do a good deal of my shopping online. Especially hard to find cd’s and vgc/as new second hand cds, most of my books and of course I do my online price matching etc to ensure the likes of Best Buy don’t gouge one on instore purchases. Best Buy will match Amazon on everything, just politely insist and you’ll save enough money to make a decent contribution to Rudy 08.

If you take the time to research more specialised purchases you’ll find that enough people have usually vent their spleen or showered fulsome praise on a staggering variety of items, especially electrical/photographic/computing etc stuff, thereby saving an expensive mistake or a frustrating purchase that doesn’t have that needed compatability/function/input or whatever. Also more technical/in depth reviews on places like Amazon, e-pinions etc will often have very useful tips for getting the best out of something or maximising a products utility, how to deal with customer no service or how to set up say an expensive home audio tuner if the manual is sh!!te or get round a software/hardware glitch.

I know the internet has been enormously useful for human scum like peeping tom. It has used the web for urgent help with gout, ED/impotence, severe halitosis, controlling genital herpes outbreaks, finding a 50 something (supposedly virgin) Filipino wife and how to discreetly join the KKK in Georgia.

A few years ago I bought an all regions JVC dvd player from some Indian owned yanKKKee based company up north, this enabled me to buy and watch over a hundred dvds, mostly TV series and some films from the UK which haven’t been released over here, or are much cheaper on Amazon.co.uk - this branch of Amazon instantly knocks off the 17.5% VAT for purchasers based in the colonies, so effectively one gets free or close to free shipping.

A pretty recent proper dictionary, with a decent discount and most importantly proper, correct spellings etc - the New OXFORD Dictionary - 2000+ pages and the equally hefty companion thesaurus was shipped over here by air mail for the standard minimal book shipping charge for two books from Amazon.co.uk

Saving the tax, getting free shipping on many items, being able to window shop online and the relatively cheap reliability of UPS and Fed-Ex etc makes web shopping a breeze.

Obviously backward, barely edcuated illegal mexican leeches and sullen ebonics spouting blacks would have NO need of any kind of dictionary - let alone the finest/best dictionary - The OXFORD - in the world.

By Dusty

November 26, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

Oh my, thinking back, I find that I am wrecking the economy of the countr. Last night’s news broadcasters declared that shoppers MUST spend a lot of money on Christmas shopping or we will be in BIG BIG trouble. (I just admitted I don’t do much shopping!)

On the other hand, economists are lamenting that home buyers went out shopping and purchased homes with little or no money and “practically nothing” mortgage payments even with low income and bad credit. Now it all fell through. BIG BIG trouble??

So..Christmas shopping…GOOD!

House shopping…BAD!

Whatsa body to do? Naughty or nice? Another Boston Tea Party on taxes? Get smart with the internet??

By Peter

November 26, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

Personally I think internet shopping is cool and fun……

I buy books allot on line and can save money, time and Gas that way.

I say no to the tax, as it is the same as in inter state regular business commerce.

By deegee

November 26, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

I have gotten some good stuff and I have gotten some real crap when buying what appeared to be a good deal over the internet. While I don’t necessarily mind dealing with the crap myself, I wouldn’t want to take the chance of putting myself and someone that I cared about in an awkward position by unwittingly sending them some crap in the form of a gift. If the person is not important enough to spend time shopping for, then they probably don’t warrant a gift.

If you start taxing online purchases then the incentive for buying online is diminished assuming that the buyer is still going to have to pay some jacked up shipping and handling charges. At some point you have to factor the risk of getting ripped off in with the hassle of dealing with unknown sources and the few bucks you save just aren’t worth it.

By 120 US Military Vets Commit suicide Every Week

November 26, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

The Price of Jim’s Soul Destroying War:

120 War Vets Commit Suicide Each Week

By Penny Coleman, AlterNet. Posted November 26, 2007.

The military refuses to come clean, insisting the high rates are due to “personal problems,” not experience in combat. Earlier this year, using the clout that only major broadcast networks seem capable of mustering, CBS News contacted the governments of all 50 states requesting their official records of death by suicide going back 12 years. They heard back from 45 of the 50. From the mountains of gathered information, they sifted out the suicides of those Americans who had served in the armed forces. What they discovered is that in 2005 alone — and remember, this is just in 45 states — there were at least 6,256 veteran suicides, 120 every week for a year and an average of 17 every day.

As the widow of a Vietnam vet who killed himself after coming home, and as the author of a book for which I interviewed dozens of other women who had also lost husbands (or sons or fathers) to PTSD and suicide in the aftermath of the war in Vietnam, I am deeply grateful to CBS for undertaking this long overdue investigation. I am also heartbroken that the numbers are so astonishingly high and tentatively optimistic that perhaps now that there are hard numbers to attest to the magnitude of the problem, it will finally be taken seriously. I say tentatively because this is an administration that melts hard numbers on their tongues like communion wafers.

Since these new wars began, and in spite of a continuous flood of alarming reports, the Department of Defense has managed to keep what has clearly become an epidemic of death beneath the radar of public awareness by systematically concealing statistics about soldier suicides. They have done everything from burying them on official casualty lists in a category they call “accidental noncombat deaths” to outright lying to the parents of dead soldiers. And the Department of Veterans Affairs has rubber-stamped their disinformation, continuing to insist that their studies indicate that soldiers are killing themselves, not because of their combat experiences, but because they have “personal problems.”

Active-duty soldiers, however, are only part of the story. One of the well-known characteristics of post-traumatic stress injuries is that the onset of symptoms is often delayed, sometimes for decades. Veterans of World War II, Korea and Vietnam are still taking their own lives because new PTSD symptoms have been triggered, or old ones retriggered, by stories and images from these new wars. Their deaths, like the deaths of more recent veterans, are written up in hometown newspapers; they are locally mourned, but officially ignored. The VA doesn’t track or count them. It never has. Both the VA and the Pentagon deny that the problem exists and sanctimoniously point to a lack of evidence they have refused to gather.

They have managed this smoke and mirrors trick for decades in large part because suicide makes people so uncomfortable. It has often been called “that most secret death” because no one wants to talk about it. Over time, in different parts of the world, attitudes have fluctuated between the belief that the act is a sin, a right, a crime, a romantic gesture, an act of consummate bravery or a symptom of mental illness. It has never, however, been an emotionally neutral issue. In the United States, the rationalism of our legal system has acknowledged for 300 years that the act is almost always symptomatic of a mental illness. For those same 300 years, organized religions have stubbornly maintained that it’s a sin. In fact, the very worst sin. The one that is never forgiven because it’s too late to say you’re sorry.

The contradiction between religious doctrine and secular law has left suicide in some kind of nether space in which the fundamentals of our systems of justice and belief are disrupted. A terrible crime has been committed, a murder, and yet there can be no restitution, no punishment. As sin or as mental illness, the origins of suicide live in the mind, illusive, invisible, associated with the mysterious, the secretive and the undisciplined, a kind of omnipresent Orange Alert. Beware the abnormal. Beware the Other.

By Tiny Tim

November 26, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

Online spending? There’s an old allegory using an Al Gore-ism about the algorithm needed to estimate the amount of albacore tuna sold online: you can tune a piano, but you cant tunafish.

I hope that helps new cyber-shoppers this holiday season.

By Glenn

November 26, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

Jim’s first question, concerning the Net’s seasonal influence, coincides with my Internet-driven Xmas shopping of just last night.

I’m on the verge of deciding which of two e-book devices to ask of Mrs. Santa, the Sony or the Kindle. I’m 80% of the way to opting for the Kindle.

Since the Kindle was introduced only last week, it’s for now available only via Internet. In pre-Net days, one would wait for the buzz, the word of mouth, the formal and informal reviews. Not these daze.

The very day the Kindle was released the site Compari, a virtual encyclopedia of side-by-side comparisons, had pitted the Kindle against the Sony point by point. The creator of the real-world, three-dimensional Kindle device is itself an internet entity, Amazon.com. For the firt time they have partnered with a brick-and-mortar retailer, Borders/Walden, to reach Kindle customers on the ground. (It’s my guess that Amazon will purchase Borders/Walden, or else the two will merge; in itself, a significant development in the context of Jim’s question.)

The Kindle device was not released with a press availability and shareholderfest featuring a staged unveiling, a girl in a bathing suit, and the irrepressible Mr. Jobs spouting blue-sky oracularities. No, the whole shebang was handled on the Net, with an extraordinarily sophisticated (and obviously expensive) 24-page Amazon.com announcement, with celebrity and expert testimonials, product features and specs, 360 views, a video demonstration, a string of close-ups of the device’s features—the works. The night of this opening, Wikipedia posted its entry on the Kindle.

That was last week, and yesterday evening I learned at home, in a few minutes, just about everything a consumer can know about the device this day. The point is that I could have learned all the same things on the evening of Kindle’s release. Many people did do.

The punchline, though, is that I won’t buy one sight unseen. No handle, no Kindle. Evidently Amazon has anticipated such a response as mine, and hence its new storefront presence. The nearest Borders, of which I am an active, points-earning member, is a short walk from my house.

This whole exercise in consumer Kindling, which is playing out across the country this season, would not have happened had it not been for Mr. Gore’s Internet: the Kindle is a wireless handheld device for downloading Internet content.

By Van

November 26, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

Not surprising, but we already pay sales tax on some internet purchases.

For example, I ordered an item from Northern Tools on-line and paid Georgia sales tax. They are here in Georgia, so I paid sales tax. The benefit for me was, the local store did not have that item in stock.

Another example, I ordered some supplies from Midway, based in Missouri, but no Georgia stores, does not charge sales tax.

Since all taxes are repressive in nature, adding this burden is not only ill advised but unconstitutional.

By Van

November 26, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

120 US Military Vets Commit suicide Every Week,

So how does this tie into Internet shopping? This type of press is very common among the sissy boy lefties. In my day, when we drafted folks, it was common to have this happen. Both in overseas duty stations and at bases in the US.

Between kids scared of bring away from family during the holidays, disgruntled individuals and those prone to this in civilian life - it happens.

To turn your masterful discovery of an article on suicide, how many lefties took a dirt nap when Gore was defeated - answer - not enough.

Back to the topic on hand - did you purchase the copy right usage on-line and did you pay sales tax?

By getalife

November 26, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

This is the wingnut’s patriotism and sacrifice in a time of war.

Shopping.

Geez.

By Tiny Tim

November 26, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

Van: Taxes are ill advised and unconstitutional? Let me tell you something, mister, let me tell you about a little guy called the IRS.

Glenduhng: Do you expect anyone to wade through that much cheek cheese? WAD!

Honestly. But you know what? I’ll do you the biggest favor of your life: nobody ever reads it, ever. Think about it. Oh, yeah, there’s ten million people sitting around with nothing to do but translate the skunk-poo you write over and over all day every day. Why dont you just stop blogging and never come back ever? The effect on this site would be the same as if you stayed and tortured these good people with more cud.

Take a hint, squint.

By Van

November 26, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

Tiny Tim,

Taxes on interstate says are not constitutional, Article 1 Sec 8 is the bases for this.

By Van

November 26, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

Tiny Tim,

Taxes on interstate sales are not constitutional, Article 1 Sec 8 is the bases for this.

By Tiny Tim

November 26, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

F-f-fa QUE!

By Glenn

November 26, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this

tftt, please tell me about your Oxford dictionary. How does it fit into the taxononomy of proliferating subspecies of descendants of the OED?

I use the free online references and customarily keep a Concise Oxford at the ready. Since my work calls for an etomological reference and since my trusty old Compact OED & glass are in storage in Sacramento, I’m deciding between the little Oxford Etomological and an online OED subscription.

Would you recommend one of these, the one you have, or something else?

Thanks, tftt.

[Rudy 08]

By jbmlaw

November 26, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

Our friend Van @ 9:31 quotes a limitation on Congressional power in the 9th Section of Article 1 – “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.” Van’s reasonable argument is that the same erroneous Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment, that applies all Federal limitations in the first eight Amendments against the individual sovereign states, would also prohibit any state from levying a sales tax against goods purchased in other states.

Until recently, the legal fiction most commonly employed by many states is to assess a “use” tax against its own citizenry, and to procure the “co-operation” of the alien merchants as a condition of accessing the courts of the state. An “innovative” view of internet transactions – that the “point of sale” is at the computer keyboard of the purchaser – gives new impetus to the state tax collectors.

My assessment is that there is no effective Federal Constitutional limitation on the right of any state to assess a sales tax on internet transactions. Only a Federal statutory preclusion against the states could limit the assessment now; I think an old preclusion may have lapsed earlier this year under our new highly-effective Congress.

By Jeff

November 26, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten,

ajc.com’s current headline regarding a shooting in the Arbor Place Mall parking lot is yet another reason to shop online. My computer won’t shoot at me, and the surrounding area is as secure as I choose to make it.

By Van

November 26, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

Tiny Tim

“Why dont you just stop blogging and never come back ever? The effect on this site would be the same as if you stayed and tortured these good people with more cud.”

Ahh, the wonderful tolerance and love of free speech from the left - how great our country is.

By deegee

November 26, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

Have the folks that whine endlessly about their taxes ever stopped to think about what it would cost to send your parents to the doctor every week were it not for Medicare? With the exception of maybe jbmlaw who might figure that sending sick old people to the doctor is just a waste of money, do you really think that you would save money if government social services were left solely to the private sector? What would it cost you to send your kids and grandkids to school if it weren’t for property tax? What would a house and a trip to the store cost you if developers were solely responsible for building roads?

By Van

November 26, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

Then please explain how it works today?

Yes, I did miscount on that section -

Applying the same limits on catalog sales to internet sales, concerning sales tax is what is in effect today.

Purchase on line from Fry’s, and you will pay sales tax. Purchase Vermont Maple syrup from the source and you will not pay taxes.

Including the last example regarding, sales tax, which one would apply? How about local sales taxes, city taxes?

If the catalog sales merchants must obey the current constitutional limitation, why not the internet sales? Since interstate sales does not come under the control of any individual state, which state would you propose regulating it?

Local states have no authority to impose taxes on good originating outside their boundaries. If there is, please give examples.

By Glenn

November 26, 2007 2:32 PM | Link to this

Tiny Tim,

It’s no big deal to me. And I now know that your advice is sincere.

I write in various combinations—of short or long, Standard American or pidgin or dialect, satirical or straight, clipped or dense, serious or mock serious—as to my lights at the moment, with varying success.

If it doesn’t float anyone’s boat, that’s fine. Usually even the most constipated and pompous stuff gets through to one or two people—a pretty good average for me.

And I’m learning every day, which helps me greatly in my work, which requires a great deal of writing in forms usually unseen here. I’m conscious, for example, of an influence on my writing of some of your style characteristics.

It’s fun for me, and others can let it pass.

By Jackie

November 26, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

@120 US Military Vets Commit suicide Every Week

You have hit on a problem with will explode in the next few years. There have been several incidents of soldiers at Ft. Bragg, NC who have returned home and killed their wives because of PTSD. The VA sweeps tries to sweep this issue from public discussion. It is a time-bomb. Sorry about your husband, a fellow Viet-Nam vet.

By Curious Observer

November 26, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

Local states have no authority to impose taxes on good[s] originating outside their boundaries. If there is, please give examples.

You’re all wet, Van. State taxes on goods purchased out-of-state are already being imposed, and they have been for years. If this imposition were unconstitutional, it would have been declared so years ago.

By time for the truth

November 26, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

Glenn

My New Oxford Dictionary 2001 ed is wonderful. It is a very decent compromise between the various editions of the two volume Shorter OED. I just discovered its out of print on Amazon.co.uk. Thirty quid for a used like new copy. It was completely rewritten by the editors and is very precise/modern in its usage and definitions with good international coverage and historical names/events etc. Its companion thesaurus is also out of print but there’s one for 27 quid used like new. The dictionary is not particularly etymological though.

I would suggest either this one if you can find it if you want a one volume copy or a newer two volume copy - not cd-rom edition - of the Shorter OED - a bit pricier and virtually twice the ‘length’ but much more indepth. The other editions tend to be a wee bit. or a lot ‘shorter’. I used to use the concise oxford years ago but that’s more for a ‘A’ level standard.

Chambers offer pretty good dictionaries too with the necessary correct spellings. Cambridge publications are decidedly lefty in tone.

By Glenn

November 26, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

Jackie, I know you’re right about the vet stats and about the problem.

I’m working right now on a proposal to the feds that would be strengthened by your stats.

If it’s not to big a hassle, would you please pass along anything that might improve a flailing Google search of the obvious? Any source or keyword would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

gtg

By Part II - 120 US Military Vets Commit suicide Every Week

November 26, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this

continued

120 War Vets Commit Suicide Each Week

By Penny Coleman, AlterNet. Posted November 26, 2007.

The military refuses to come clean, insisting the high rates are due to “personal problems,” not experience in combat. For years now, this administration has been blasting us with high-decibel, righteous posturing about suicide bombers, those subhuman dastards who do the unthinkable, using their own bodies as lethal weapons. “Those people, they aren’t like us; they don’t value life the way we do,” runs the familiar xenophobic subtext: And sometimes the text isn’t even sub-: “Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington and Pennsylvania,” proclaimed W, glibly conflating Sept. 11, the invasion of Iraq, Islam, fanatic fundamentalism and human bombs.

Bush has also expressed the opinion that suicide bombers are motivated by despair, neglect and poverty. The demographic statistics on suicide bombers suggest that this isn’t the necessarily the case. Most of the Sept. 11 terrorists came from comfortable middle- to upper-middle-class families and were well-educated. Ironically, despair, neglect and poverty may be far more significant factors in the deaths of American soldiers and veterans who are taking their own lives.

Consider the 25 percent of enlistees and the 50 percent of reservists who have come back from the war with serious mental health issues. Despair seems an entirely appropriate response to the realization that the nightmares and flashbacks may never go away, that your ability to function in society and to manage relationships, work schedules or crowds will never be reliable. How not to despair if your prognosis is: Suck it up, soldier. This may never stop!

Neglect? The VA’s current backlog is 800,000 cases. Aside from the appalling conditions in many VA hospitals, in 2004, the last year for which statistics are available, almost 6 million veterans and their families were without any healthcare at all. Most of them are working people — too poor to afford private coverage, but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid or means-tested VA care. Soldiers and veterans need help now, the help isn’t there, and the conversations about what needs to be done are only just now beginning.

Poverty? The symptoms of post-traumatic stress injuries or traumatic brain injuries often make getting and keeping a job an insurmountable challenge. The New York Times reported last week that though veterans make up only 11 percent of the adult population, they make up 26 percent of the homeless. If that doesn’t translate into despair, neglect and poverty, well, I’m not sure the distinction is one worth quibbling about.

There is a particularly terrible irony in the relationship between suicide bombers and the suicides of American soldiers and veterans. With the possible exception of some few sadists and psychopaths, Americans don’t enlist in the military because they want to kill civilians. And they don’t sign up with the expectation of killing themselves. How incredibly sad that so many end up dying of remorse for having performed acts that so disturb their sense of moral selfhood that they sentence themselves to death.

There is something so smugly superior in the way we talk about suicide bombers and the cultures that produce them. But here is an unsettling thought. In 2005, 6,256 American veterans took their own lives. That same year, there were about 130 documented deaths of suicide bombers in Iraq.* Do the math. That’s a ratio of 50-to-1. So who is it that is most effectively creating a culture of suicide and martyrdom? If George Bush is right, that it is despair, neglect and poverty that drive people to such acts, then isn’t it worth pointing out that we are doing a far better job?

*I say “about” because in the aftermath of a suicide bombing, it is often very difficult for observers to determine how many individual bodies have been blown to pieces - BUT THE BIG DEBATE IN THE AJC IS ON INTERNET TAXES?

By Glenn

November 26, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

Thanks a lot, tftt. Will do.

By Van

November 26, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

Curious Observer,

Please refer to the 1967 ‘National Bellas Hess, Inc v. Illinois Department of Revenue’ case and the follow up ‘North Dakota v. Quill Corporation’

In the examples you gave, Edwin Watts Golf Shop has a presence in the state of Georgia, therefore you will pay taxes on any purchase.

I would have to say, that you are the one that is all wet.

By jbmlaw

November 26, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

Dear Van @ 2:30, I wrote sloppy. The core “problem” for the states is not that they cannot levy a tax, but that they have no capacity to enforce the levy. [When a company lacks a physical presence within a state, it can get away with thumbing its nose at the tax man. Many times I have written polite letters to tax authorities in states where my company has not presence, declining to facilitate their effort to collect monies; I always advised them specifically how to domesticate their claim, and that was usually the end of the inquiry.] Similarly, a company can put a tax obligation on its citizenry, but all tax authorities rely substantially on voluntary compliance. State of Georgia can legally assess a use tax against Georgia citizens for all good purchased from Vermont Maple Syrup Co., but VMSCo has no legal obligation to pay any attention, and the State may find it an insuperable task to identify and hale into court those Georgia citizens who purchased the sweet maple fluid. If VMSCo purchases a tar-boiling plant in Waycross, then suddenly the state has negotiating leverage.

As you correctly wrote, there is no legal distinction between internet transactions and catalogue transactions. However, there is no Constitutional prohibition, merely a practical one. (I thought earlier that there was a Federal preclusion of such taxation of internet transactions, but I think now I was wrong.) If, however, a state-regulated entity controlled internet access for Georgia citizens, I can imagine a circumstance that would greatly enhance the state’s capacity to enforce its tax, one almost completely absent in the case of catalogue orders. Whether the state would wish to process such a volume of information is doubtful. However, if the various states entered into a “uniform tax collection compact,” that would be both enforceable and effective. This is all hypothetical, I am making this up as I type. I think there is nothing that would preclude the taxation, other than perhaps public outcry. {I am not carrying water for the tax authorities, this is all an academic exercise so far as I am concerned.)

By DICK -IF ONLY I HAD A HEART - CHENEY

November 26, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this

OUR NIGHTLY PRAYERS ARE BEING ANSWERED - WE CAN SOON RESUME OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE NATIONAL HEART ASSOCIATION. PRAISE JESUS

By BS Aplenty

November 26, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this

Internal Revenue Code Section 1604(a) a/k/a “The Santa Clause” has just been enacted.

A meeting with Santa, the Elves and their official Christmas attorney (possibly jbmlaw) somewhere around the North Pole

Attorney: (to Santa) It appears that the IRS is getting a bit desperate for revenue. They’re requiring that you collect the sales taxes owed on that merchandise you’re supposedly “giving” to all those children.

Santa: Hello, how am I going to do that, what with my supposedly being ‘stealthy’ and all. What am I gonna do, knock on the door and say, “Guess who”? What if they can’t pay?

Attorney: Apparently, you now have quasi-police powers and may ‘cuff them immediately for non-payment or…

Santa: …or what?

Attorney: …or set them up on an installment plan.

*Santa: and just who’s gonna underwrite those installment notes?…

Somewhere in the Investment Banking Group at Citicorp

Banker (to colleagues): …it appears that we’re now the proud owners of $10BB in sub-Prime ‘Santa notes’…

By Jackie

November 26, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

@ Glenn,

This one of many articles on the subject found on Google. I think there were more than 500,000 people assigned to Viet-Nam, given the numbers this study cite, more than 90,000 vets have PTSD. Many others dispute the numbers, however.

The report, published in the journal Science and viewed by experts as authoritative, found that 18.7 percent of Vietnam veterans developed a diagnosable stress disorder that could be linked to a war event at some point in their lives, well under the previous benchmark number of 30.9 percent. And while the earlier analysis found that for 15.2 percent of the veterans the symptoms continued to be disabling at the time they were examined, the new study put that figure at 9.1 percent.

The findings come at a time of simmering debate over the emotional effects of service in Iraq which, with its lack of a conventional front echoes the Vietnam experience more than it does other wars. Politicians have clashed over the Department of Veterans Affairs’ budget, including its $3 billion annual bill for mental health, in part because of a suspicion that the estimated rates of post-traumatic stress, based on Vietnam veterans, were too high. Last year, the department commissioned a review of combat stress disability claims for evidence of exaggeration.

By deegee

November 26, 2007 5:30 PM | Link to this

We send grief counselors to schools when someone gets hurt or dies. How do you expect those kids to grow up and be warriors? Shouldn’t we have grief counselors available for every soldier that comes back from war? If you can’t do that, then don’t send them off to kill.

By Tiny Tim

November 26, 2007 5:46 PM | Link to this

Everyone knows there aint no sanity clause.

By WTF

November 30, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

Jim, why are you so petty about Hillary Clinton? Disagree with her policies if you want, but you know as well as anyone else (assuming you watched the news or read the paper during the Clinton administration) that then First Lady Hillary Clinton represented the United States around the world — and at more serious events than dinner parties. Your shrillness on the Senator from New York only serves to make you look small minded and intensely partisan.

By WTF

November 30, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this

Well, that’s embarrassing. I tell Jim off but in the wrong posting. Anyway, leave Hillary alone Jim and go do some Christmas shopping. I hear the Senator prefers both diamonds and pearls so you know what to buy for her.