Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why we have intrusive government regulations.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Courtesy Flush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 07:04 PM
Original message
Why we have intrusive government regulations.
I was listening to NPR today, and they ran a story about online sales tax. They said that Amazon knows that states want them to collect taxes, and they actually said something to the effect that they would gladly comply if the law tells them they have to do so. Well, if you'd gladly comply, why not prevent the government from forcing you, by collecting the taxes?

Corporate culture has reached the point where they will not do anything that might cut into their profits unless the government forces them to. I'm 51 years old, and I remember when I was a kid, television broadcasters followed the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Practices_for_Television_Broadcasters">Television Code. They used to run PSAs explaining that this was a code of conduct that the industry created in order to be good public citizens, AND to prevent the government from forcing a code on them. I'm no fan of the Television Code, but it's still a good example of how industry can elect to self regulate, and avoid more complicated government intrusions.

So soon we'll hear people complaining about Big Government forcing online retailers to collect sales taxes, but remember, they were offered the opportunity to do it under their own terms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Drale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. The ESRB was created by the video game industry
for that very reason, to stop to government from censoring the industry. There are still good companies in the world, they are just becoming way to scarce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shagbark Hickory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't quite understand, Online retailers do collect sales tax. But only for the state in which
they are located or have some warehouse. And that is the way it should be.
Sales tax is unfair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Courtesy Flush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The story said they're not paying
In states where they have warehouses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Quite right, no nexus, no taxes
By defining affiliates as a nexus means that the affliate programs die and with it any revenue it brought it. Amazon will continue ship to Illinois and profit. Illinois will see no taxes and lose revenue. Not smart, even for Illinois.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shagbark Hickory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. If they're outsourcing their order fulfillment which they seem to do (to UPS maybe?) ...
then is this what it's about?
If my order ships from a UPS warehouse in Kentucky then you're saying Amazon should collect sales tax for Kentucky?

I still disagree with this too. They are paying UPS. UPS pays their own state and local taxes and federal tax. They still employ people who pay state and local taxes and federal tax.

Collecting sales tax is just another way to collect taxes without making the rich pay their fair share.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. Regulations force everyone to do something
Companies that might be more socially conscious fear that if they voluntarily do something that might increase their costs internally and/or to customers, that they will lose their market share. Having a regulation that forces their competitors to do something as well solves the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC