Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,100
- 245
Not "gung ho" on the bill, as a consumer it means more dollars out of my pocket.
Shooting down inaccuracies about how a law functions does not equal being "gung ho" about a bill. It more indicates discussion from a detached logical basis instead of making an emotional decision and then using false premises presented to others as to why something "can't" work.
In the early 1900's people told the Wright brothers that flying "can't be done". People said we couldn't put a man on the moon because it "can't be done". Some people confuse "complex" with "can't be done". The requirements of the law that states simplify the taxing requirements, that they provide a single access point for resellers so that don't have to deal with 9,600 jurisdictions, that the software electronically prepare and submit the reporting requirements means that the retailer is going to be insulated from the "complexity".
Emotionally? Ya, paying more taxes sucks.
Logically? People are breaking the law by not remitting taxes ALREADY required because the current system is the "honor system" after the fact. This closes the loophole and shifts the paradigm to time of sale. The same method already applied to B&M sellers.
>>>>
It is entirely possible to turn the entire planet into a radioactive wasteland.
In other words, just because we can do something does not mean we should.
I do appreciate you trying to make this about people hating progress instead of what it really is about though. It shows how desperate you are.
That's what you got out of that really? The point was that "complex" does not mean impossible, nothing about "hating progress".
What is this really about? Is about states wanting the remittance of tax revenue that is legally owed and a shift from the "honor system" which is unenforceable to a "time of sale" model just like B&M stores. The whole "marketplace fairness" portion is a political bullshit screen, what this is really about is states wanting the revenue for sales occurring in their state (which is based on the purchasers location).
>>>>
I see the problem here, you are so stupid you think that this is about taxes.
It is about rent seeking, I suggest you look up the term.