Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Sachin Bhutani
1305 Followers
1KrazyKorean
13259 Followers
Andres Arenas Velez
0 Followers
Joseph Williams
3 Followers
MediaSight
13125 Followers
osabr22000Aug 11, 2010
We want some of that internet money or we're going on strike.
plainoldfoolAug 11, 2010
I'm not threatened by you buddy!
bradjenkins0Aug 11, 2010
Your not my buddy guy.
redhawktechAug 11, 2010
You're not his guy, pal
invictus125Aug 11, 2010
He's not your pal, friend!
peppermintpigAug 11, 2010
He isn't your friend, chum.
errdayimhustlinAug 11, 2010
He's not your chum, mate.
vbullingerAug 11, 2010
He's not your mate, um... companion...
Merriam Webster's Thesaurus entry for "friend:" http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/friendComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peppermintpigAug 11, 2010
He's not your companion, bro!
amaoicanAug 12, 2010
He's not your bro, sis! I am!
bdfarielloAug 12, 2010
He's not your sis, that's just a contradiction in pronouns.
dephextwinAug 12, 2010
I'm not myself today, man.
wf80diditAug 11, 2010
If only there was a way to NOT be forced to pay more taxes. But here we are again, King George demanding more and more. No doubt they'll pass this, regardless of what us little people think.
calthemyrmidonAug 12, 2010
So do you like living in civilization or what? If you really want to pay less in taxes, start demanding that our government at the federal, state, and local level reform our programs so that we have the checks and balances needed for fiscal responsibility and efficiency.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peppermintpigAug 12, 2010
The best accountability comes from the freedom to consent, and to compete against inefficient services. There are no effective checks and balances when the general trend of government is to draft bills to siphon off the largesse of the public.
How many times has reform been suggested? I don't want to discourage you from finding solutions, but I question how much longer people will expect the system to change when it inherently resists it, and corruption rises through the ranks leading to something much worse: Indifference and a disregard for the people politicians and bureaucrats are supposed to be 'serving'.
inconquerableAug 11, 2010
Terribly written article.
cbootyAug 11, 2010
"...when they are not available locally—or when they're much cheap online"
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
I agree but it did have one point on.
'The more interesting aspect of this bill is the bogus meme that this is really about collecting taxes on what is "already owed."'
The tax is technically already owed. If you purchase a car in Oregon (with no sales tax) and you live in Washington, you still have to pay the sales tax. You are supposed to do this for ANY item but they aren't going to spend the resources tracking you down for your $100 Best Buy purchase. It tends to get assigned for larger ticket items. For example, if you have Best Buy deliver a TV they'll have to charge you sales tax even if you purchase it in Oregon.
If you are taking it home yourself they just look the other way.
zb757Aug 11, 2010
I'm a cheap bastard, I'll buy from wherever I can get it cheapest, tax or no tax
Closed AccountAug 12, 2010
Actually, if you are having a company like Best Buy deliver you a TV, they'll charge you the tax rate of the city being delivered to.
shanosAug 12, 2010
Standard GST America, come join us other westerners like Australia, UK and New Zealand, socialism isn't so bad.
bookantAug 11, 2010
^ ^ That. If the author of this piece wants to pass himself off as some kind of expert, maybe he should try reading "Taxes for Dummies" first to catch up on the level of knowledge the average lay person has . . . .
His nonesense about having to pay sales tax to pay for goods and services you don't use because they're in another state is equally BS. You owe sales tax in your own state; the retailers job is just to collect and pass it along. *To the state YOU live in.*Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jabbrwockeyAug 11, 2010
It's PCMag, what do you expect? The Economist?
untzboyAug 12, 2010
This comment is delightfully neutral.
thefirewireAug 12, 2010
It's Dvorak, He is like that drunk grandpa you see on holidays who makes you sit in his lap while he rants on about the old days even though you are 25 years old. Also you notice he isn't wearing pants and all the children at the family get together scream in fear at the snake monster flopping from underneath his old man robe.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
God forbid the government create any taxes to pay for services it provides. While normally I'm all for taxing the rich because of that ridiculous figure about top 2% having 95% of the money - or whatever; applying taxes to these items is not as ridiculous of an idea as the author tries to make it sound. The name of the bill? Yeah that's crazy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hewhopoopsAug 11, 2010
Well, what's the point of the tax? Sales taxes are collected by states, and I don't see a reason why I should pay another state's sales tax when I buy something from my basement in Ohio. And, any tax to "even the playing field" is fundamentally opposed to the idea of a free or even kinda-free market, since the field is uneven because brick and mortar stores are out of touch with today's consumers.
ontainAug 11, 2010
I thought it was that you'd pay your own state's taxes when you bought from a company outside of yours.
ozydingoAug 11, 2010
I'm not sure which way it works, but either the company is paying its state's tax (and charging you to make up for it, but if you buy it you buy it), or you are paying your own state's tax. Where's the problem, other than that paying taxes sucks?
"brick and mortar stores are out of touch with today's consumers"
Seriously? While I don't argue the greatness of online shopping, this statement is a little absurd.
hewhopoopsAug 11, 2010
Yeah, there was a bit of hyperbole in that statement.
What I'd meant is that if big box stores want to compete with online retailers, then they need to start taking notes. I'll admit I haven't been to a best buy in about two years, but I stopped going because anything I could find there I could fine cheaper online, plus I have instant access to reviews and such.
bookantAug 11, 2010
"Yeah, there was a bit of hyperbole in that statement."
Way beyond that. Most of the big online retails corps are selling items at or below cost. Their entire operation is one big giant loss-leader (google it). Brick and mortars can't and don't do that because Wall Street hasn't shown a whole lot of willingness to keep propping up money-losing retailers that don't end in ".com." None of that has anything to do with being "out of touch with today's consumers."
Shall we take a real life example? Let's look at books. A bookseller is getting between 40 - 50% off the price of a book when they buy it from a wholesaler or publisher. That's the same for B&N and Amazon as it is for a local independent. Every book that the big .coms sell at that steep of a discount is being sold at a loss. Investors or other sources of revenue are then used to artificially prop up the business. (Here's an example from the B&N Annual Report. Read page 9 to see how the operation of BN.com is justified to the shareholders as an advertising expense for the stores - http://www.barnesandnobleinc.com/for_investors/annual_reports/2008_Annual_Report.pdf )
^^That's fact. Now one little additional tidbit that is, admitedly, just my educated opinion:
At what point does this loss-leader magically become profitable? If you're taking a loss on the items on each order, volume isn't the answer. If you increase your customer traffic, you're just increasing your loss. Answer - it's an investment in running everyone else out of business. Same strategy Best Buy used to run Musicland out of business, same strategy B&N brick & mortar used to kill independent bookselling.
When does it become profitable? When the competition is all gone and you can jack the prices as high as you want since the consumer no longer has anywhere else to go. Yup, that's definately a practice we should be proping up with special tax breaks that other businesses don't get . . . .
arfikeAug 12, 2010
I just like the idea of self-centered, selfish pricks like you having to pay more for something just because my government said you had to.
That puts a big grin on my face and warm fuzzies in my belly every night before bed. Just the thought that the horde of politically lazy, narrow-minded wannabe-know-it-alls, living in a country where you have the convenience for your $2.45-per-day soda habit, who have this idea that the very thing that kept American society afloat generation after generation since its inception is causing them to suffer from this system enough to stress yourself into a fry-grease-fat-aided heart attack over a panic that has been pushed, up until a colored moved into the White House, solely by the very white, rich, bigots who elected the government that got the country into the mess it's in. And instead of scaling back, taking the responsible role of increasing taxes for those who can afford it (ie. the upper echelon of wealth who have bathed in riches for the eight years prior to the last national election).
It's your fault that nothing is done in government. It's your fault that our politicians are afraid to do the fiscally responsible thing and raise taxes for the super-wealthy. And if you sad morons sat back and questioned the bulls**t you're peer-pressured into following for one second, you'd see that these ideas have been strangling the middle class, drove the national job rate down the toilet and turned a major surplus into an even bigger deficit. Well to make you pay some of your hard earned cash, even if I'm paying it too, just gives me the biggest, giddiest, giggliest stupid grin. Yes it does. :D
maxxellAug 11, 2010
"God forbid the government create any taxes to pay for services it provides."
What service are they providing to help me purchase something online?
dfrossAug 11, 2010
Internet infrastructure.
jjustin01Aug 11, 2010
The government doesn't pay for the Internet infrastructure either. Without telcos, universities and other countries, that infrastructure wouldn't exist. While the government may help fund expansion and research, it's not the government who directly doing such things. The Internet would exist, as always, without the government's hand in it.
Whether or not the Internet would be an overly priced, slow bitch due to greedy commercialism is a different story.
sethprAug 11, 2010
"The Internet would exist, as always, without the government's hand in it. "
So who exactly provided funding for ARPANet and still provides the budget for ARPA to keep researching?
I don't want the Internet tax either, but that is an erroneous statement that could be used in favor of the tax.
bookantAug 11, 2010
Yes. I'm fairly certain your UPS shipment will also pass along a road or two on it's way to you, as well. Or be flown on a plane.
vbullingerAug 11, 2010
^^ And UPS will pay all the requisite taxes in the process, what's the F-ing point?
No, no, I get it: regulate the s**t out of the Internet. Turn this country into China. I'm cool with that.
Global communism is what we need, right comrades?!?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantAug 11, 2010
^^ You had at one point almost fooled me into thinking you were reasonable . . . .
But, no, you're right, the world is black and white. Our only choices are (a) no taxes and (b) communist China. There's absolutely no in-between . . . . .
You also reveal the corpratism that's the real heart of today's "conservative." You may recall, or if not you can find it in my comment history - my discussing before the fact that I run a small business . . . . you guys are all about sticking up for giant corporations when they lobby for their business interests, to the point of treating them like "people" and fighting for their "free speech." But show you a comment from a *small* business thinking an unfair pro-mega-corp loophole should be closed and it's - "COMMUNISM COMRADE DERP DERP!"
spartan777Aug 12, 2010
"What service are they providing to help me purchase something online?"
I assume you must be joking, but I will explain for those who don't know any better. The government provides the roads the delivery trucks drive, the Postal Service is always an option to ship things, Cargo planes were developed by the US government (civilian planes are evolutionary descendants of Air Force Bombers). The United States Government invented containerization (during the implementation of the Marshall Plan) so anything that came from China and/or must be shipped across the country benefits from that. Police prevent the retailers you are using from getting robbed, and firefighters stop them from burning down- whether you buy from BaM or online. The FTC and SEC keep any single corporation from getting too big and keeps them within the rules, thus keeping the market competitive and protecting the 'little guys.'The lasers used to scan items during shipping and in warehouses were invented by the government. The internet you are using at this moment, and while you order things was developed directly by the government in the large public-university system, the military, and indirectly through government subsidies (like the monopoly AT&T once enjoyed).
Sure the system isn't perfect, but without the government coordinating technological developments (lasers, the internet, telecommunications, containerization) and maintaining our infrastructure (the railways, the highways) you would not be able to enjoy the ease of hitting a couple buttons and getting a toaster from amazon.com the next day- and taxes are what pays for all of it.
maxxellAug 12, 2010
@spartan777
"The government provides the roads the delivery trucks drive" - The gov't also taxes the gas that UPS is using, and the registration of the trucks, and the license of the driver, etc. Also, the gov't uses highway funding to exert incredible influence over the states. So I dont think that the UPS deliveries are a meaningful expenditure for the interstate highway system. The government also has large forests, but I'm not taxed on the air I breathe.
"Cargo planes were developed by the US government (civilian planes are evolutionary descendants of Air Force Bombers)" - By this logic, every air plane should pay royalties to the Wright Brothers and not the government.
"The United States Government invented containerization (during the implementation of the Marshall Plan) so anything that came from China and/or must be shipped across the country benefits from that." - This tax would just as much to an article of commerce that never got on a train or a boat, so the US's addition to 'containerization' not used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containerization
"Police prevent the retailers you are using from getting robbed, and firefighters stop them from burning down- whether you buy from BaM or online." - How does this, in any way, not apply to every single person everywhere? Taxes should be reasonably related to the thing being taxed. By this logic, the gov't can tax diggs, cuz the police prevented someone from stealing your computer.
"The FTC and SEC keep any single corporation from getting too big and keeps them within the rules, thus keeping the market competitive and protecting the 'little guys." - By allowing me to purchase things from any store in the country (or world) that I would otherwise need to buy in a local brick and mortar store, the internet does far more to encourage competition than the FTC and the SEC as far as my toaster purchase from amazon.com.
"The lasers used to scan items during shipping and in warehouses were invented by the government." - Source? After all, Einstein first came up with the idea, and Bell Labs (or maybe it was Hughes Research Laboratories) was the first to get an optical wavelength laser working.
"The internet you are using at this moment, and while you order things was developed directly by the government in the large public-university system, the military, and indirectly through government subsidies (like the monopoly AT&T once enjoyed)." - Once again, way too broad. After all, it was the launch of Sputnik that encouraged US investment in this avenue (namely, the creation of ARPA). So maybe I should send a few bucks to Moscow every time I check my email.
If you trace it back far enough, everything has something to do with something the government once did. Because the government does a lot. That doesn't mean we should tax every dollar of every transaction ever.
omnipotencyAug 11, 2010
This would be a book keeping nightmare for small businesses everywhere and will hurt commerce far more than it helps 'level the playing field'. The author is right to describe it as a money grab. If they want to tax e-commerce, find a different way to do it that doesn't hurt the little guy.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
Any tax will raise prices. How does that not hurt everyone, much less the little guy?
formerbabbyAug 11, 2010
It also hurts green giants!
soc7Aug 11, 2010
How is this a book keeping nightmare? The tax that would be charged would be the tax based on a person's zip code, right?
omnipotencyAug 11, 2010
The problem lies in that there are 50 different tax codes for 50 different states. Let's say a small mom and pop pool shop is shipping parts all over the country. Monthly (or weekly? not sure here) they would have to send off 50 different forms to 50 different states, sometimes for one or two purchases.
Ever do your taxes? I don't like doing it ONCE per year for ONE state.
soc7Aug 11, 2010
I see your point. If it were my small business I would hope to be able to do this electronically. Having to file in all fifty states would be problematic though.
ravagedsoulAug 11, 2010
It's far more than 50; many counties and even cities have their own tax rules. Not just different rates, but each with different exemptions for certain types of items. And the rules are constantly changing.
There's an enormous added cost for administering sales tax, a cost that the consumer bears.
mcfriendlyAug 11, 2010
And don't forget the 20 states that provide "tax-free" or "tax-reduced" weeks/days once a year. How about paper work for non-profits?
ghostalkerAug 12, 2010
Wait til you see New York's tax law for businesses. You'll s**t whole phone books.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
make a special e-commerce tax that is the same nation-wide.... i propose a 2-4% internet sales tax.... give a discount for using USPS... <<people need incentive to get these guys out of the red and into the black
the main thing is.. the rate needs to be a flat rate tax throughout the states..... that would make things so much easier instead of having different rates everywhere that constantly changeComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
omnipotencyAug 11, 2010
This is an acceptable solution. Let the government handle the paperwork then instead of the shop owners. They're better equipped to handle such things and centralized is always more efficient than each person filling out their own.
ravagedsoulAug 11, 2010
There's *never* been a simple, straight-forward tax; there are always exemptions and exceptions, and local governments always want their own say.
You couldn't even stick with a straight tax yourself - you propose a discount to encourage certain behavior. Everyone else wants the same things, so we end up with stupidly complex rules.
nutsackninjaAug 11, 2010
Yeah great idea, lets bailout a failing business like USPS by giving them an advantage over another carrier through government invention.
Worked so well for Chrysler and GM
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
@ravagedsoul.... USPS isnt going away.... they will continue to operate and lose money and the taxpayers will foot the bill..... so, yes, give a small tax discount if using a government service that badly needs more customers so we dont have to pay more in the long run...
plus ideas can be discussed and improved..... seems the right thinks otherwise and just turns whole ideas down because of small details that can be changed
autokadAug 11, 2010
Tax them based off the zipcode in their credit card purchase, after all its required. That doesnt sound like too much for the 'little guy', unless the 'little guy' is just trying to evade taxes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
archangelzltAug 11, 2010
If a real store does not tax its customers based on their billing address, why should a Internet store do? Another problem arises when customers purchase with overseas credit cards. You may not they accounts for much, but banning overseas customers or customers living in the U.S. who use a credit card from another country (usually their home country) from purchasing at any U.S. online store is ridiculous.
speedAug 12, 2010
You ever filed taxes for 50 different states? It would really be a pain in the ass.
sethprAug 11, 2010
Besides the fact that it will hurt local businesses online even more since that would push buyers to use retailer from elsewhere (ie. China) and most of those sellers will happily mark the box as a "gift" or as "replacement equipment" or something else that is exempt from tax.
chaon93Aug 11, 2010
The only reason sales tax doesn't ALREADY apply to online purchases at the time of purchase is because sales tax laws were created before the advent of e-commerce, all states SHOULD just rewrite their tax codes and make it work at the state level, but that would take too long, federal intervention is pretty much the only way to get it done.
A law like this would primarily just make business software developers adapt.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sexyboboAug 12, 2010
No the reason sales tax doesn't already apply is because it is specifically prohibited in the constitution
"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."
Think sales tax is bad wait till they add and import tariff if you buy something from another state. Have to keep that money in the local community.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
We don't need any more damn taxes. Republicans spend all our money on wars and tax cuts for the rich, and democrats are always looking for ways to weasel money out of the middle and lower class with taxes. Lame.
galevisAug 12, 2010
They do tax e-commerce. It's each person's responsibility to declare in their tax returns merchandise they bought online and didn't pay any tax on so they can pay appropriate sales tax on their state return.
sexyboboAug 12, 2010
They do not tax it if it is interstate e-commerce because that would be unconstitutional.
"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."
furious412Aug 11, 2010
The first section of this article makes sense. Most people do not shop online to avoid sales tax. They do it because items are usually a lot cheaper and there is usually a wider selection. However, the part about being charged California sales tax for buying an item online in that area doesn't really make any sense. If I live in NJ and I drive into NY to buy an item I don't expect to NOT be charged NY sales tax because I live in NJ.
I still don't see taxing internet sales as leveling the playing field. The money you would pay in tax is usually equivalent to what you pay in shipping. Most people would rather shop in a store if the item they want is available and comparable in price to what they see online. I hope these attempts to "tax the internet" continue to get shot down.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
the problem is that services in both states will be used when purchasing online.... so really the tax should be divided between states.... which is also why the online tax needs to be the same across the board.....
bloodwineAug 11, 2010
online products will not be cheaper at all if people have to pay both taxes and shipping on all online purchases.
lovewidescreenAug 11, 2010
That was a bad example on your part. Buying in New York when you live in New Jersey is NOT an interstate transaction. At the time of purchase you are physically in New York. You could just as well be making that purchase for a friend who lives right down the street from the store. When you buy online, you are clearly making an interstate purchase because you never left your house in NJ to make a NY purchase.
However, we are in full agreement at hoping that all Internet taxes get shot down.
autokadAug 11, 2010
"this is the internet and everything should be free because i want it!" allowing companies to partake in tax evasion just so that something is cheaper online is stupid. the lower or no tax rates for internet purchases was never meant to be forever, it was for the early 2000's when they wanted to allow online companies some breathing room to start a business. now buying something online is not such a new concept. Most people will buy something online because its easier trying to find it in a store near by, but theres no reason why it should be tax free.
as far as interstate purchases, try buying a car in a neighboring state with a low sales tax than were you live, and see how that makes out for you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zb757Aug 11, 2010
That's because they make you register the cars. No one makes you register that flat-screen TV
bookantAug 11, 2010
"I still don't see taxing internet sales as leveling the playing field. The money you would pay in tax is usually equivalent to what you pay in shipping."
. . . and that is one of the ways the playing field is "unlevelled" to the advantage of the online retailer. Instead of having to factor in the fact that you'll have to pay shipping if you order online, you have essentially a subsidy making the shipping "free," much to the disadvantage of actual brink-and-mortar businesses.
sexyboboAug 12, 2010
Brink-and-mortar stores often figure in sales tax into the cost of their product the exact same way.
Ever bought a candy bar that was priced at $1 and paid $1 for it? Carnivals and movie theators do this all the time because its easier to take the 4% hit then to have to deal with change and cash registers.
ghostwoAug 12, 2010
I think the most obvious lie is when they say that it would 'benefit consumers'. I can see absolutely no mechanism - neither lowered costs, increased competition, improved quality/selection, etc. that could be construed as a benefit. Gee thanks, Mr Government official! This new concept of benefiting from higher prices is great! Maybe if you could just go ahead and triple the price of everything, we could really see these elusive benefits grow!
lazymojoAug 11, 2010
This may vary per state, but a few I've lived in require you to self-report online purchases and pay the appropriate sales tax at the end of the tax year. Don't get me wrong, I love not paying taxes, but it's pretty hard to argue with a straight face that internet purchases get special status.
hipmanAug 11, 2010
Self-report huh?.Good luck with that....
dynamojoeAug 11, 2010
Some states have been rumored to be asking Amazon about big purchases made by their citizens in order to discover unreported taxes. Wish I could find a link, but I think it was on Digg a few weeks ago.
chaon93Aug 11, 2010
the fact that people don't self report out of state taxes is WHY they are pushing the tax to the retailer side
(my state has it worked into the state income tax returns, it requires you to report out of state and online purchases and deducts the sales tax from your state return)
sexyboboAug 12, 2010
if they do they are breaking the law per the constitution
"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."
waspbrAug 11, 2010
internet tax = WWIII
sangjmoonAug 11, 2010
I have an idea. If the goal is to have local brick and mortar stores compete better against the internet due to sales taxes, how about decreasing the sales taxes imposed on the brick and mortar stores instead?
arcookeAug 11, 2010
Yeah, like that's going to happen...
roddackAug 11, 2010
It is a nice idea but I doubt that the local municipalities would be for such an action since they would likely see it as cause them to loose even more tax revenue which of course they hate.
sangjmoonAug 11, 2010
Strange thing is that if they decrease the sales taxes significantly, they will actually see a rise in tax revenues in the long run.
ljseinfeldAug 11, 2010
Well, no. But nice try.
min3matAug 11, 2010
Or they could reduce their margins. Surely this is GCSE level thinking >.>
csdcoAug 12, 2010
I use vinyl siding on my business, I shouldn't have to pay taxes at all.
zeitgeist6149Aug 12, 2010
Here's the thing though. You can argue with that because they don't care about brick and mortar stores. They just know that you care about them, so they say it.
spartan777Aug 12, 2010
Do you understand that schools and firefighters don't pay for themselves?
methdwman3Aug 11, 2010
HAH - Could have told you it was a Massh**e that proposed this - right in the middle of a deep recession, the folks here in Mass decided raising the sales tax would be a good idea. Between people running to NH and the internet to avoid it, the pols are a bit unhappy..
timthetaxmanAug 11, 2010
Technically, consumers are supposed to pay use tax on any items where they were not charged sales tax (out of state retailer or a state where there is a lower sales tax and you bring the item home etc). Many states allow you to do this on your yearly income tax return.
Enacting a “fairness” tax because the state doesn’t want to use the resources to enforce this is ridiculous.
sexyboboAug 12, 2010
No they are not because that would be illegal.
"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."
bloodwineAug 11, 2010
one major problem with sales tax on the internet vs. a brick-and-mortar store is the complexity involved in tracking and calculating sales tax online.
currently online stores only charge you sales tax if your physical address is in the same state as their HQ.
however, if stores have to charge sales taxes for people living anywhere, then who gets the taxes? the state where the business is located or the state where the consumer is located? if it is the latter, then an online business would have to keep track of sales tax rates for all states and locales and apply the proper tax and then have some sort of mechanism to track all the various taxes collected and who gets what slice of the pie when they turn around and pay the government.
this will destroy a lot of small online businesses, unless they use a maintained/managed ecommerce product or service that manages all the tax headaches for them. it will nearly be the end of roll-your-own online stores.
timthetaxmanAug 11, 2010
It’s a lot more than just headquarters. Online store must charge sales tax in any state where they have nexus. This typically means in a state where they have a physical presence, but it can also mean a state where their employees solicit business often.
Having worked in the tax industry for a number of years, I will confirm how burdensome this is. There are thousands and thousands of different taxing jurisdictions in this country (state, county, city, and even various sub-districts of those). Each has different sales and use tax rates and rules regarding what is taxable and what is not.
autokadAug 11, 2010
so your telling me, you think its out of the question that ecommerce sites keep a database with 50 rows of data? seriously? if its so fricken hard to keep track of just 50 state sales tax rates, they could outsource that anyways, like how many ecommerce sites outsource their credit card payment systems. in fact, they could just push it on to them for the calculations, which they probably already do.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bulletbillxAug 11, 2010
it is WAY more than 50. counties, cities, etc. all charge all sorts of varying rates.
autokadAug 11, 2010
good god your right! there is WAY more! there is about 321 counties in the united states, how can they survive? theres JUST TOO MANY
timthetaxmanAug 11, 2010
@autokad
Texas has over 1000 different taxing jurisdictions alone.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/local/city.html
Takes a min to load :)
altidudeAug 11, 2010
@autokad, you're getting dugg down but you're right. There is software available to handle the "burden" of the tax computation and that is exactly, IMO, the argument that will be made to overturn the existing Supreme Court decision that exempted online businesses from charging sales tax.
fiji5555Aug 11, 2010
I didn't know John C. Dvorak was still alive much less writing anymore.
dynamojoeAug 11, 2010
He's just in it for the clicks. If this article doesn't do well, he'll write something scathing about Apple. That's been his bread & butter for over a decade.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
danbarkerAug 11, 2010
if you noticed to anything in the morning you would know that the statement you made was completely wrong. You are a giant douchbag and probably will get two to the head.
martoqAug 11, 2010
Another aspect not mentioned is that the concept of "brick and mortar" has gone somewhat out the window. Most BaM shops have a web presence already. All this is going to do is hurt the very BaM they are "trying to save". I agree with Dvorak on this one, it's a money grab, nothing more.
gruntboyxAug 11, 2010
I much rather pay a higher income or property tax, than pay sales taxes. I wish they would get rid of the sales tax all together. At least there are some states without them. Id rather see the guy driving the 60,000k SUV or luxury vehicle get hosed on his car taxes than have to pay all these pity use taxes.
timthetaxmanAug 11, 2010
I disagree. I'd much rather pay a higher sales tax or property tax than income tax. Income taxes punish earning, whereas sales and property tax punish spending. Higher sales and property taxes and lower income taxes reward savers.
Granted, sales and property tax don’t have the progressive structure of income tax and that is why many social engineering/ income redistribution people don’t like it.
gomanAug 11, 2010
It sounds like you want to social engineer with your "reward savers" plan. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disagree with your plan. But don't call out social engineers when your plan does the same thing.
timthetaxmanAug 11, 2010
@goman
True, but I’d argue that rewarding saving is classless and treats everyone equally unlike the progressive income tax system. The same would be true if the income tax were flat regardless of income.
Ideally, there would be no taxes, but if we have to tax, the idea should be to do it in the most beneficial and equitable way.
gruntboyxAug 11, 2010
For me, its not about the social engineering, as much as it is about how our modern economy works. For better or for worse, the economy functions on a high velocity of money. Meaning people have to spend. This cycle of spending is what funds everything. When you abruptly eliminate or shift the tax burden to a value added or sales tax model, then it is a regressive tax that retards all modern economic engines. It causes the press to over react, markets to crash and in the end high unemployment. Dont quote this comment as a white paper on economic indicators, but The "Fair tax" system is one that swings the pendulum too far the other way.
By eliminating the sales tax and shifting the tax burden to property you still keep the same balance of tax structures. It would cause the least impact, but protect the viability of e-commerce. I would even specify that one would shift the state sales tax to the automobile property tax.
This whole idea of protecting main-street is bologna as e-tailers have to provide shipping services which factor in their ability compete with brick and mortar.
taxmoreAug 11, 2010
You guys need to realize they need that money to pay for votes. Unions don't give away votes for free. Pet projects don't fund themselves. That $300,000 sign over the highway that blinks "click it or ticket" 24/7 puts americans back to work!
Obama just added more taxes on businesses with the health care plan, taxes on businesses will go up even more when the Bush tax cuts expire, they just added a 10% tax on tanning in the health care bill and .25% tax on all financial transactions in februrary. There isn't much else left for them to tax. There is only a matter of time left until weed is legal, not because they care about individual freedom or some study backed it's use.. it's because they want to tax the s**t out of it.
Think of the government guys.
penclnckAug 11, 2010
Hey, you pointed out how obama is putting more taxes on business. That makes you a racist!
samurimasterAug 12, 2010
Yes those poor tanning beds
spartan777Aug 12, 2010
"There isn't much else left for them to tax."
Income taxes are at the lowest rates they have been for almost a *century* for most Americans. The estate tax is almost nonexistent. There is no such thing as a Tobin tax or VAT tax. Taxes are very low both in historical terms for the United States, and relative to other industrialized nations in the world.
The anti-tax rage is manufactured by rich people who want to shift all of their burdens to the working and poor classes. I am against taxing food and essentials, since sales taxes on that especially burdens the poor. However, nothing essential to life is bought over the internet. We need tax revenue, so its reasonable to put a tax on online purchases.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
http://dvorak.com/blog/
ninjaboyAug 11, 2010
I got the joke :P
Closed AccountAug 12, 2010
Nyah! I get no spam, see!
redhawktechAug 11, 2010
You're not his guy, pal
memperAug 11, 2010
This guy completely missed the point. His offset difference is to point at shipping costs. Get real.
This is all about ancient New England politics and the never ending march of Massachusetts submitting legislation for the benefit of itself despite any other state in the nation, and especially to spite it's dear neighbors to the north, which, incidentally, has the only sane taxation in the entire country.
I am not against an online transaction tax however.
Let's think about how online purchases actually work. No vendor would want to manage zip codes, and the privacy of users would come into question. As a service, credit card companies implement the tax at the transaction layer and would just add another fee on top of the many fees a business pays for the pleasure of being beholden to the credit card companies to complete a transaction. That fee will be passed on to the consumer. That's right, you'll be paying for the pleasure of paying taxes. That's why this bill is wrong and shipping has nothing to do with it.
We need taxes. If you want to fight this bill, point out that the legislation is simply targeting the wrong layer to pay the tax. Online transactions have become a requirement of the modern economy. National liquidity has been outsourced. Credit companies should pay for the right to contract this now fundamental process of society through taxes. Such a tax should be disallowed to be passed on through overt or existing fees. This would unburden the consumer from paying to pay taxes as well as neutralize the clearly Massachusetts bias.
We love you New Hampshire. Live free or die, etc. ;)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
akairennAug 11, 2010
"We need taxes."
We need a few less pointless wars; we need less private plane trips for senators to go to lunch; we need cheap ass McDonald's coffee instead of trendy expensobrew in Congress.
memperAug 11, 2010
We'd still need taxes and although you're right, it should not be unwarranted, we'd still need government spending.
memperAug 11, 2010
Weird, my post submitted before I was finished typing. Anyhow, my point of need of taxes is admittedly idealized, but we're working with a system of government based on the morality of it's citizens and representation.
The ability of our government to tremble in the existence of corruption is not a weakness, but a feature that allows the population, you included, to know when such decisions as you've marked are unwarranted. Be careful the call for limitations, the shackles are blind.
akairennAug 11, 2010
Honestly, I agree - we do need *some* taxes. I like my roads, even if they're often filled with potholes. ;)
Anyway, I'm fairly against any sort of taxation of online transactions. I dare say it wouldn't be the death of e-commerce (gods help me for using that term) - Amazon, for example, is capable of fairly nullifying shipping costs for the consumer via Amazon Prime. However, the number of small businesses who aren't going to be able to afford to deal with state-by-state taxation from selling things over the Internet is legion. It doesn't matter who pays the fees - customers or the businesses themselves. Those businesses *will* die, and it'll be a damned unsightly blow to our already shaky economy.
I'm not seeing a few pennies per dollar for states as a valid reason to risk the collapse an entire industry, especially when the states can already collect the appropriate taxes. That they don't want to bother enforcing use taxes - that they want to pass the buck here, is a bit hard to swallow.
peppermintpigAug 11, 2010
If by We you mean 'the people', then yes, the people should establish a reverse tax on the government and keep their money.
default08Aug 11, 2010
Thanks for the article Jim Gaffigan.
unbannedaccountAug 11, 2010
I know, the I totally expected him to plug Hot Pockets during the article.
carabouAug 12, 2010
If he had written this In The Morning it would of been better.
yuusharoAug 11, 2010
A similar, although not exact, analogy would be how in Los Angeles, they're trying to regulate the Taco trucks out of business. Basically, the idea that instead of a static building that people have to walk to, these trucks pull right up to where business is and cook you the food on the spot without having to go somewhere else to eat. The poor "brick and motor" stores are hurt because these evil trucks are stealing their customers....
...because they're winning over people with convenience! Everyone knows its easier to buy things online and have it delivered to your house. Its 2010 for goodness sake! Every major outlet store has an online presence now. Often, an online store through eBay or Etsy is the only way a small business or individual can conduct commerce and sell their own products. Every single one of those business already pay taxes for operating in the United States. They already are playing fair.
John is absolutely right. This is nothing more than a money grab designed to take MORE of YOUR money from your pocket, and to drive more business out of the country, where they don't have to pay that nonsense. Instead of fixing themselves up in Congress and budgeting the money they have, they're reaching out and trying to steal more of yours under the guise of "fairness."
chaon93Aug 11, 2010
This isn't a case on convenience, brick and mortar stores are forced to collect tax where internet retailers are not, a brick and mortar store could charge the same price as an online store and STILL be at a disadvantage, simply because of sales tax.
crgauthAug 11, 2010
Lots of stores already do this. Yes most are national retailers, but if they can (and have to ) collect sales tax, why shouldn't everybody?
I don't see the difference between buying from Best Buy something they only offer online and I have to pay sales tax, and buying the same item from an online retailer and not having to pay sales tax. I think taxes should be applied equally. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dynamojoeAug 11, 2010
Dvorak contradicts himself slightly in his closing: "and no relief for small businesses, we don't need an onerous tax hike for online shopping."
By removing a competitive advantage from online shopping, small businesses would see a net gain in sales. For example, I'll make a big purchase on Amazon to save on sales tax (7.5% adds up when you're buying a TV). But if I have to pay the tax there, too, why not instead go down to the local B&M, save on shipping, and have it today?
crgauthAug 11, 2010
Especially if people are going in to the B&M store, having the sales clerk spend all the time doing demo and answering questions, then having the customer leave to go buy it online.
Not sure how prevalent, but you have to admit it does happen.
zb757Aug 11, 2010
I only do that for configurable things, like computers. I (almost) never buy floor models, so I go to the store to see what the model is like, then I go to the manufacturer's site to give a custom order.
If it's for something that is one size fits all (like an iPad), then that's being an assh**e (also called a smart shopper). Besides, high-pressure salesmen are annoying as hell
diggerlaterAug 11, 2010
Hey, approval of congress at 11% and falling, economic depression, president promises not to raise taxes on the middle class... PERFECT TIME to raise taxes on the middle class!
Taking a person's money against their will is theft, no matter what the alleged justification, no matter if it is "legal". Taxation is theft.
peppermintpigAug 11, 2010
If you're not willing to go through the process of paying taxes and getting a license like all the other civilized people, then you obviously don't deserve to benefit from OUR society. What you are doing is unfair. If you stopped resisting with your utopian ideology, the government would gladly grant you sanction to plunder. I did it, and so can you. It's easy! You don't know what you're missing in that backward ignorant life you live.
diggerlaterAug 11, 2010
I disagree that countries with taxation are civilized. I would argue that the extent to which the individual is subjected to arbitrary sacrifice at the hands of a society's "elites" is the extent to which that society has failed to become civilized.
peppermintpigAug 11, 2010
/s necessary? :)
Insomuch that one is subject to arbitrary dictation by a third party intervening in an act of mutual exchange, capitalism, and liberty proper is thus diminished.
Civilization is not a possession, much less an exclusive possession of a nation state, but it is a process, often compartmentalizing undesirable behaviors, though often distorted through the black markets which government creates. History has abundant examples of people claiming the mantle of civilization and accusing others of barbarism. The Chinese used to believe westerners were barbaric for using knives and forks.
diggerlaterAug 11, 2010
I wasn't being sarcastic. Obvious we have differing ideas on what it means for a society to be "civilised". My version includes individual rights and a limitation on the powers of the state. I believe that Chinese civilization is still quite barbaric, for example.
peppermintpigAug 11, 2010
No, I meant _I_ was being sarcastic in my first comment.
I believe in liberty, but I don't believe in an enumerated set of rights. It's arbitrary to the principle.
I just don't use the term civilization to imply anything like 'order' or 'harmony' as civilization comes with a lot of collectivist baggage when most people use it.
vbullingerAug 11, 2010
Surprised I haven't heard:
"Blah blah blah 'roads' blah blah blah."
I usually hear that when someone waxes eloquent about the overbreadth of government or any new tax or tax increase. Those statist asshats seem to think that all taxation goes to fund roads or something. I especially love it when they bring that up in a discussion about the income tax.
Really? The income tax? Going to pay for roads? That's like a third of the average person's income. If the government spent one _third_ of our income on roads, we'd all be driving on roads of pure gold and toll booths wouldn't consist of you paying to travel a stretch of road, but be more like a pit stop where a supermodel provides you with certain services.
samurimasterAug 12, 2010
"PERFECT TIME to raise taxes on the middle class!"
Because only the middle class shop online ?
"Taxation is theft. "
Then get a shovel and build your own roads
arcookeAug 12, 2010
Taking a person's money against their will is theft. - Correct.
Taxation is theft. - Incorrect.
When a thief robs a bank, does he paint the ceiling on his way out? No, the thieves take your money and run, leaving nothing behind. You're paying taxes mostly for the necessities of a modern, civilized society. It's not like they're taking your money and giving nothing in return. If you don't want these nice things, you can feel free to move to a quaint little village in Africa
You're a moron. - Correct.
spartan777Aug 12, 2010
Then I assume you are an anarchist. If you aren't an anarchist, you are either lying or a hypocrite.
marogerAug 11, 2010
As the owner of a brick and mortar, I say with confidence, they can do anything they want to the crappy internet businesses! If you see it on my shelf I actually have the product! Right now! Not only that, but you get to touch it and determine if it truly fits your needs- and I can actually help you determine that decision in real time! If it's not what you want you won't have to ship it back to me, just don't buy it. I can, in many instances, direct you to where you could buy exactly what you need, or confidently offer you an alternative that may fit your needs even better- without spending hours on a computer. Of course I charge more, but you actually get something for that money: convenience and value. What a concept. Oh, and the money I take in doesn't need to be traced. I have it right here and I keep alot of it right here in the local area. AND I offer the option to ship whatever item you want from my shop anywhere in the country.
Buried for whining.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ninjaboyAug 11, 2010
Got any tuscan whole milk?
peppermintpigAug 11, 2010
How do you thin the internet will be paid for if we don't tax it??? This is the price of living in a society. Now give the nice IRS man your money or we'll break your kneecaps.
elfman9Aug 11, 2010
The tax isn't going to keep the Internet running. It goes to the Government....
peppermintpigAug 11, 2010
Apparently I do need this today: /s
I'm lampooning the mindset that government needs the money to provide the 'service'. Extrapolate the principle and then the hypocrisy is revealed.
peppermintpigAug 11, 2010
And any notions that the government created the internet ignore often the fact that it's original purpose was bound in military operations: The US pays dearly with idiotic wars and weapons expenditures.
The toll in human life, time and resources does not justify any innovation based on such motivations and ignores the fallacy of the broken window.
errdayimhustlinAug 12, 2010
If memory serves, it was Al Gore who invented the internet... Please get your facts straight.
tgc1Aug 12, 2010
The Internet may technically have been started by the Military (Darpa) but it was the Universities and Colleges and big Business that brought it to where it is.
bloodwineAug 11, 2010
uh, people pay their ISP for internet access and there are usually taxes involved.
unless you live in prison or steal someone else's wifi you don't get free internet.
twinklyjesusAug 11, 2010
It's what I've been trying to point out all along. Net Neutrality is about getting establishing precedent where the FCC has authority over the internet. Then, the government can levy taxes and through FCC regulations and control, the Treasury will be able to collect the taxes.
samurimasterAug 12, 2010
Who the f**k said anything about net neutrality ?
v3rtex7740Aug 12, 2010
Anyone paying attention.
samurimasterAug 12, 2010
Then do explain for those of us who are not how the application of sales tax to interstate commerce = network neutrality
spartan777Aug 12, 2010
"Net Neutrality is about getting establishing precedent where the FCC has authority over the internet."
That is factually incorrect. Net neutrality would not give the FCC any additional authority over the internet, and would not make it any easier to collect taxes through internet purchases.
elfman9Aug 11, 2010
I shop online because it's typically much cheaper then it is locally. If my local prices would come down to the same level, or everyone would honor the online price, then I'd buy more locally. That simple.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
What if I'm buying from outside the United States?
bijaAug 11, 2010
I order lots of things online that I wouldn't buy locally. There are times I prefer to buy something locally just so I can take it back if there is a problem. I am not hurting local businesses. If I have to start paying tax on things I buy online, I will probably not buy as much as I do now.
vtorchAug 11, 2010
We live in Obama's world now. Everything is subject to be taxed.
penclnckAug 11, 2010
Missing the big picture here. States are looking to tax the person who makes a purchase. When you purchase online, it means more people are going to be involved in getting the product into your home as compared to you going down the road and getting it yourself. Online purchases boils down to more jobs. And the more jobs we have as a country, the greater tax base we have.
A great way to kill something, tax it.
chaon93Aug 11, 2010
While this would be difficult book keeping for small online businesses, small local shops are being forced to have a higher cost to the consumer even when the pricing is even. Two local shops have failed even though they had good pricing (cost at store is around that of item+shipping online) and good selection, simply because if people had to shop locally they would have to pay 6% sales tax, way to many people will think, 100$ online or $106 in store, and save those 6 dollars, even though the store IS charging 100, and the taxes bump it up to $106
What is needed is a specialized tax form that allows businesses to file all out of state sales taxes on one form, so that the taxes can be easily sent to the appropriate state
mweatherAug 12, 2010
"What is needed is a specialized tax form that allows businesses to file all out of state sales taxes on one form, so that the taxes can be easily sent to the appropriate state"
That's kind of exactly what this bill does, in effect. It will allow the States (24 have adopted the law so far, with 20 more on the way) who have adopted the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement to make the program mandatory instead of voluntary.
Instead of figuring out the amount yourself, you'd use a designated Certified Service Provider to keep track of it for you. Not sure how that works exactly, but I'd imagine it would be built into most shopping carts once it's mandatory.
The framework for this law has been laid at the state level for quite a while now.
Read more here: http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/
linksusAug 11, 2010
Ok lets just even the playing field then..
f**k you, f**k him, f**k them all, f**k everything and everyone. f**k it!
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
Dvoraks the man
danbarkerAug 11, 2010
America is DOOMED! Haha -- no wonder why your a failed super power.
dj4wvuAug 12, 2010
No wonder why you didn't get past 5th grade.
danbarkerAug 13, 2010
No, I didn't get past any of them... mainly because I'm not a part of the US' s**tty education system.
v3rtex7740Aug 12, 2010
wow, tough crowd
juliusthecatAug 12, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
rectangleAug 12, 2010
We don't have this problem in Australia. We have a 10% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on most goods and services regardless where & how they are sold, that is collected by the Federal Government and then distributed back to the states.
jabbrwockeyAug 12, 2010
Sounds too simple. Taxes are meant to be confusing and hard to track.
russfrAug 12, 2010
I'm all for a National Sales Tax in exchange for a reduction of income tax. Not quite the Fair Tax, but close. That way foreign visitors and illegal immigrants pay more taxes than they do now. Especially the illegal immigrant part.
mweatherAug 12, 2010
We can do one of three things.
1. Tax the Internet.
2. Raise State Income Taxes.
3. Cut Local Spending. (Police, fire, schools)
They're all crappy options, but we have to do one of them.
fr33tochooseAug 12, 2010
No we don't, how about cut the $1 Trillion we spend on overseas imperialism.
mweatherAug 12, 2010
How will that help state governments?
v3rtex7740Aug 12, 2010
It won't, it will just help the state. More $ in people's pockets means more $ spent.
I think $1T a year is f**king ridiculous, we could do a hell of a lot more good with that money. Say, perhaps, feed the hungry?
jabbrwockeyAug 12, 2010
How about we create a federal sales tax and cut income tax?
Income tax was only supposed to pay off WWI debts anyways.
mweatherAug 12, 2010
Wouldn't that just shift the tax burden to the poor, who tend to spend a larger portion of their income? Without spending cuts, such a plan would be disastrous. If you are cutting spending massively, just keep the taxation progressive, but at 0% below $100k.
jabbrwockeyAug 13, 2010
No, because you still have property and other taxes. While I say nothing about cutting spending, you can be sure that any spending that is cut will only hurt the poor, since more programs are geared at helping them than the rich.
samurimasterAug 12, 2010
"So, I'm going to be charged sales tax in Washington when the company is in California"
Being a resident of (Southwest) Washington, it's the norm to be asked at checkout if I am a Washington resident, as nonresidents are exempt from state sales tax.
tgc1Aug 12, 2010
You could give the government this tax money. It still won't change the fact that they are f**kING INCOMPETENT and couldn't be fiscally responsible if the world continuing to exist was dependent on it. These governments are looking for every source of tax money that they can, not because they need it to serve us better, but because they CAN'T STOP f**kING SPENDING. They can't stop because that would mean the end of their entitlements and all the other bulls**t that goes along with it.
Any more taxes than we've got is robbery. f**k these f**king f**kers. The internet is our last bastion of freedom. They ruin this, it's game over for everything.
avangionqAug 12, 2010
To all elected public officials, if you tax the internet, you will be forfeiting any hope of reelection, as we will vote for those who would run on a campaign to repeal the internet tax.
carabouAug 12, 2010
In The Morning he must of wrote this.
hawaiianruleAug 12, 2010
They need to tax the f**k out of the internet.
pezeldaAug 12, 2010
Drew Carey?
bryanscott85Aug 12, 2010
a bill about raising taxes and i see nothing but D's in the co sponsor list
typical
spartan777Aug 12, 2010
"the government created the internet"
This is a matter of historical fact.
"the Universities and Colleges"
The *public* university system, and maybe Stanford too. Of course, private schools were only included in that research because they got government grants for that research. "Big business" did nothing on its own to create the internet. Only AT&T helped in the development, but AT&T labs only existed because of massive government subsidy in the form of monopoly power. Monopoly power was granted on the trust that AT&T would return the favor by hiring scientists and engineers to help develop telecommunications. The internet was not opened up to the general public until 1993 (or what is 1994?) with legislation that handed out (notice the phrase) all the technologies the government developed that make up the internet. In other words, the government gave away the internet free to business only after it became profitable, but not before. Do you think *any* corporation would invest in a technology that couldn't generate revenue until after several decades and tens of billions of dollars in research? Of course not, only the government can plan that far in advance. Corporations can barely plan beyond the next financial quarter- they have no incentive to.
arfikeAug 12, 2010
I dun want pay no moar tazes!! Nao I got 2 go take da bus on paved rodes 2 da liberry to finish my book report to pass the grade at my crowded skool of underpaid teecherz!
NO WATE ILL PAY TAZES 4 MOAR BOMZ 2 KILL IRAKEYZ!!
/s
/picks nose
/eats it