ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD
bhodilee wrote:I'm just saying, 30 round, 200 round, whatever size clip isn't going to matter. If a large group of illegals decides to kill his family, they're dead. Now, clip size arguments are stupid in the first place, we both agree on that.


I agree, I told him to pick up some claymores for his yard. (not for the ranch itself, might mess up the cattle)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
ERMD wrote:I agree, I told him to pick up some claymores for his yard. (not for the ranch itself, might mess up the cattle)



I'm sure the answer is no, but how sweet would it be to pop down to walmart and buy a claymore.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

Time for another long, meandering post from me, this time on gun control. I don’t pretend here to answer all of the issues, but to define them better, and may even fail at that. This is a topic that generates a lot of extreme statements from both sides, and from my point of view the issues are really fewer and clearer than many people claim.

Firstly, I don’t see how car crashes or smoking deaths have anything to do with what we might do to make shootings less frequent or less deadly. There’s no either/or situation here. And besides, those other causes of death, while lamentable, are totally different animals.

I don’t know what the best approach to this problem is. One thing I do know is that the two extremes don’t qualify as “best”. Banning guns, while it may be used as a scare tactic, is not only clearly contrary to the Constitution but also is only being talked about by fringe players who really have no impact on what we might do (just like the people – and I know one of them – who think the best way to reduce pollution is to ban cars). Despite the talk I keep hearing about “they’re coming for my guns”, nobody is coming for your guns, and sensible regulation does not start us down any inevitable slippery slope. Your definition of “sensible” may vary, and the political process can (when working well) arrive at a consensus definition. But cars and many other things have related safety regulations and registration requirements, and nobody’s coming for your car, or your chain saw, or your pesticides, etc.

The other extreme is to let everyone have whatever weaponry they want and can acquire. Maybe we should have some limits – nuclear weapons and attack helicopters shouldn’t be available on Amazon – but it sometimes seems that the NRA’s approach to gun violence is always “we need more guns!” I’m sure the gun manufacturers would love that, but it wouldn’t really make me feel safer to know that every 18-year-old on the street could well be carrying multiple military-style weapons.

So, what are the purposes for citizens (excluding the military and law enforcement personnel) having guns? I can think of several. Hunting – I have no problem whatsoever with guns used for hunting. Target shooting, whether for fun or in competition? The same. Self-protection? Some degree of self-protection is unfortunately required, but there is a matter of degree here, otherwise we get into someone saying he needs an arsenal of sidewinder missiles to protect his house from predators in society. Collecting? No problem. If gun control talk were centered on these purposes, the discussion would be very one-sided in favor of gun ownership.

But then we get into the other uses. Criminals, of course, are fond of guns. If you’re going to threaten someone, a gun can certainly help make that threat immediate. And as we have seen in Mexico, gangs of criminals use them to defend their piece of the criminal pie. I guess we should include suicide in this group. And, though I wish it weren’t so, deranged people use them (not frequently, but too frequently) to commit senseless, random killings. I hope that we can all agree that, if there was a way to limit these uses without imposing undue limits on the uses mentioned up above, such limits would be a boon to society.

Then there comes the issue of guns being a protection against tyranny. Back when the Second Amendment was written, the list of democracies in the world was rather short, and we didn’t have a standing army (read Jefferson about the dangers of having one). I’m no expert on this subject, but I would think that that fact has something to do with why a “well regulated militia” was considered to be “necessary to the security of a free State” – that’s where a fighting force would come from if, as happened a mere 23 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, a foreign power should invade the United States. But I would posit that conditions have changed. Foreign invasion is not much of a threat (but see below), and if things got bad enough we could always reverse course. The lack of a foreign invasion leaves open the fear of, essentially, a domestic invasion – the systematic abridgement of civil liberties by our government. Are we truly so afraid of our government that we turn our homes into armories? Maybe I’m blithely ignoring ominous portents, but I don’t see it.

The last use of guns that comes to mind has recently been proposed by Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. This is the guy who previously called FBI agents “jack booted thugs” who go around “wearing N.azi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens”, so he is known for hyperbole. He wrote about guns as protection against anarchy, pointing specifically to crime in Brooklyn after Hurricane Sandy (crime was actually quite low in that circumstance), terrorist invasions, Mexican drug cartels, and the disappearance of police protection due to the imminent financial collapse of America, as threats that make any form of new regulation tantamount to a death wish. He was heavily criticized for this, with complaints about how he saw the world as a Mad Max movie. I must say that he did sound rather paranoid, with little faith in America’s ability to deal with threats of any kind. Registration of guns sold at gun shows won’t make societal disintegration a foregone conclusion.

So, in the end, I think it comes down to what was mentioned up there somewhere – actions that curtail the ability of people to use guns for bad purposes, while not imposing undue hardships on the often-mentioned “law abiding citizens” and not violating the Constitution. The Second Amendment is famously vague and open to interpretation, and while I absolutely agree that it confers upon Americans the right to own arms, I am not so sure that it allows no regulation of what types of arms can be privately owned or of what requirements there might be regarding registration and use. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, hardly a gun-control-crazed liberal, wrote in his opinion in the Heller case that there are many limits on Second Amendment rights that pass judicial muster, specifically mentioning prohibitions of concealed carry, carrying into sensitive places, possession by felons and the mentally ill, and the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons”. And he mentioned the regulation of ammunition types in oral arguments (I haven’t read his entire opinion in the case, so maybe he brought it up there as well).

What would impose an undue burden? I’m sure there are some who think that any burden is an undue burden, but I strongly disagree. We already have background checks for some sales, so why would extending them to all sales and making them more efficient be an undue burden? It seems obvious that such a move would help in the effort of keeping guns away from undesirables, as would restrictions on “straw sales” where one person buys guns for someone else (whose background is not checked due to not being a principal in the transaction). Research into gun violence by the CDC has been effectively banned, but I don’t see why its reinstitution would be a bad thing. These, to me, are the easy ones.

The more contentious ones seem to be bans on high-capacity ammunition magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and so-called assault weapons. Personally, I don’t see why armor-piercing bullets are needed for hunting or target shooting. What would be their lawful purpose? I guess they would just be useful to fight Mexican drug gangs and the U.S. government, should they threaten to overthrow civil society. Not a compelling argument to me. So, the big three becomes the big two.

High-capacity magazines first. The problem with them is clear – nut cases who decide to shoot people can do so more quickly if they can fire a lot of bullets in a short time. At least one (probably more) shooter has been stopped not while shooting, but while re-loading; if they would have to do that more often, that would give the rest of us more opportunity to stop them. Changing magazines, though, is a fairly simple and quick thing to do – the real argument for restricting them is that a 10-round magazine is not one-third the size of a 30-round magazine, much less one-tenth the size of a 100-round magazine. Shooters would be able to carry fewer bullets if magazine capacity was restricted. It seems to me that there are really two issues here instead of one – whether to restrict them at all, and how to define “high-capacity”. Those who argue against any restrictions at all generally (as far as I can tell) do so on a self-defense basis. The notion that their availability is better for crime victims than crime perpetrators is tenuous though, but worthy of reasoned debate, and it leads into the second issue as well. What qualifies as high-capacity? Well, the AR-15 rifle has come with 30-round magazines for 50 years now, the popular Glock-17 handgun has (you guessed it) a 17-round magazine, and 100-round magazines, previously notorious for jamming, are getting better and more common. President Obama has recommended a 10-round limit.

Now on to assault weapons. I recognize that there are varying definitions here as well, but I’m sure any bill stipulating a ban would have specific language that could be debated and, in the cases of previously proposed legislation, have already been debated. Under a sufficiently rigorous definition, we are talking about weapons that have been designed for a single purpose – to allow people to more quickly and efficiently kill other people (these weapons originated for military usage, and have been modified for non-military sale). I also recognize that assault weapons are not used in a majority of crimes – we are talking about single-digit percentages here, but still numbers that we would like to see go down. This is a concept that acts as a definition of whose side you’re on – one side says no to it, one side says yes, and both sides give knee-jerk reactions to any mention of it. As chemvictim said, this might be an issue that politically isn’t worth getting into right now.

So – what’s the net result? Nobody’s coming for your guns, the issues are smaller than they look if you can get past the unthinking reactions that people lock themselves into, and we’ll need all the guns we can get when the zombie apocalypse comes.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
ERMD wrote:I agree, I told him to pick up some claymores for his yard. (not for the ranch itself, might mess up the cattle)



Does claymore mean something other than a big ol' sword?

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

Nobody's coming to take your guns. I agree. Gun people, I am on your side, but approaching the issue from a confiscation perspective is a bit premature. Still, I'd prefer not to give an inch without a very damn good reason. We've given up enough already in the name of fear. I think right now the issue is "assault" weapons and high capacity magazines. Banning these things will not accomplish anything. They already exist, they are out there, and guns can last practically forever if cared for. And they will be cared for. As soon as all this happened, people started running out to buy all they could. It's been great for gun dealers.

Which leads me to my next point. I'm very disappointed in the reaction from our administration after the shooting. Obama went on tv and made an emotional appeal that we must do something, and we will do something. He didn't say what. He came out later with reasonable suggestions, such as background checks, etc. But he left the specter of "they're coming for my guns!" hanging out there for far too long. He has to know that he scares the crap out of a lot of conservatives, maybe especially those who are very fond of their guns. Whether that's appropriate or not, he must know it, and making those vague statements showed very poor judgment on his part, imo. It's like poking them with a stick, and for what? I guess he has nothing to lose at this point, but what's the gain?

klezman


quality posts: 129 Private Messages klezman
ERMD wrote:I see a lot of issues, do you really want the govt telling you if you can or can not have something?
As for driver license, more death and harm by cars then guns. I see people everyday that should not be licensed to drive and they are; why?; because the govt regulates it. Now really, is the govt the answer?
Ok I am for some regulation really, but what is the limit?Once we give govt control, we lose some individuality.



The government tells all of us every day what we can and cannot have. Drugs, food additives, cars without seatbelts, alcohol if you're less than 21, etc etc. I'd prefer they regulate those items which are designed to be deadly and keep track of them and keep them out of the hands of those most likely to cause harm with them. I'd also like it to be harder to get a drivers' license...I live in CA where the drivers really are horrible.

2014: 42 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2012 Iron Horse Estate Chardonnay
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
klezman wrote:The government tells all of us every day what we can and cannot have. Drugs, food additives, cars without seatbelts, alcohol if you're less than 21, etc etc.



They do! I wish they would stop. Enough already. You know what really bugs me? I can't go buy cold medicine anymore without filling out a form. Try it with an out of state ID. That ruined an entire morning of vacation for me once, and I'm still pissed off about it.

klezman


quality posts: 129 Private Messages klezman

Coyne...great thoughts. Nothing more to add.

2014: 42 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2012 Iron Horse Estate Chardonnay
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 129 Private Messages klezman
chemvictim wrote:They do! I wish they would stop. Enough already. You know what really bugs me? I can't go buy cold medicine anymore without filling out a form. Try it with an out of state ID. That ruined an entire morning of vacation for me once, and I'm still pissed off about it.



Based on my daily work, though, I'd *much* rather have government overseeing what corporations are allowed to sell to us and what claims they're allowed to make while doing it. Government is actually extremely conservative in this country over what regulations exist for chemicals/drugs/food additives.

2014: 42 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2012 Iron Horse Estate Chardonnay
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

joelsisk


quality posts: 10 Private Messages joelsisk
chemvictim wrote:Does claymore mean something other than a big ol' sword?



feel free to google, but it's basically a next-generation land mine.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
klezman wrote:The government tells all of us every day what we can and cannot have. Drugs, food additives, cars without seatbelts, alcohol if you're less than 21, etc etc. I'd prefer they regulate those items which are designed to be deadly and keep track of them and keep them out of the hands of those most likely to cause harm with them. I'd also like it to be harder to get a drivers' license...I live in CA where the drivers really are horrible.



I wonder how much these things mentioned are affecting other, larger issues like guns. Personally, I don't want the gov't telling me what I can and can't do. And they seem to be doing so at an increasing rate. When they add something else to the list -- in this case, new gun control -- I say "enough already," not necessarily because I don't want stricter gun control, but because I'm sick of everything that came before.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

joelsisk


quality posts: 10 Private Messages joelsisk

edlada


quality posts: 5 Private Messages edlada
joelsisk wrote:feel free to google, but it's basically a next-generation land mine.



Actually pretty old school, first used in Viet Nam in the '60s. A better description might be a stationary shotgun on steroids.

I agree with coynedj's post and that is about all I'll say on that issue since I made nice to ERMD (and he to me) and don't want to cause undue consternation!

My dogs like me, that is important.

joelsisk


quality posts: 10 Private Messages joelsisk
edlada wrote:Actually pretty old school, first used in Viet Nam in the '60s. A better description might be a stationary shotgun on steroids.



next generation doesn't mean it's new...

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD
edlada wrote:Actually pretty old school, first used in Viet Nam in the '60s. A better description might be a stationary shotgun on steroids.

I agree with coynedj's post and that is about all I'll say on that issue since I made nice to ERMD (and he to me) and don't want to cause undue consternation!


We did but I also said I want to here your thoughts, you may come up with something I haven't thought of.

joelsisk


quality posts: 10 Private Messages joelsisk

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
joelsisk wrote:more on the inadequacy of current background checks



I don't know about that. 3,600 'bad' transactions a year (some of which aren't bad but are a result of a faulty background check) when there are 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 total transactions a year is a remarkably low error rate.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

Sequestered! So now what?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:Sequestered! So now what?



More bull sh*t and penile-measurement fights.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
jawlz wrote:I don't know about that. 3,600 'bad' transactions a year (some of which aren't bad but are a result of a faulty background check) when there are 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 total transactions a year is a remarkably low error rate.



Condoms have a low failure right too, I think we can agree there's room for improvement there though.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

trifecta


quality posts: 74 Private Messages trifecta
chemvictim wrote:Sequestered! So now what?



Some of us lose our jobs. Directly or otherwise. Most effect not until the end of summer. Ugh....

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
trifecta wrote:Some of us lose our jobs. Directly or otherwise. Most effect not until the end of summer. Ugh....



I'm sincerely hoping that the actual impact will be minimal. It's easy and fun to hate on federal employees, but plenty of us care deeply and work hard. And this crap will punish even those who are have not found the pot of gold at the end of the federal employment rainbow (sarcasm). The worst part is that it's all happening because these childish people cannot even come close to doing Their. Damn. Jobs.

grumble grumble

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:I'm sincerely hoping that the actual impact will be minimal. It's easy and fun to hate on federal employees, but plenty of us care deeply and work hard. And this crap will punish even those who are have not found the pot of gold at the end of the federal employment rainbow (sarcasm). The worst part is that it's all happening because these childish people cannot even come close to doing Their. Damn. Jobs.

grumble grumble



If any of us sucked at our jobs even 1% as much as these a-holes do, we'd have no jobs...

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:If any of us sucked at our jobs even 1% as much as these a-holes do, we'd have no jobs...



Damn right. I get it, they have major disagreements about the budget. But FFS...they just LEFT, just LEFT in the middle of their extremely strenuous work day that started at 10 a.m., and told us all to go Bing, Bing, BING! ourselves. I'm super pissed.

trifecta


quality posts: 74 Private Messages trifecta
kylemittskus wrote:If any of us sucked at our jobs even 1% as much as these a-holes do, we'd have no jobs...



Agreed. They just don't care anymore. It is no longer about the strength of America. Unfortunately cuts of this magnitude, in this way, have no hope of a minimal impact.

This level of nonsense makes me supportive of single terms. No more angling for position. Speaker, whip, etc... You're f'n done after your term. Quit trying to get re elected and do your job.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

Well, it's Monday morning and no news of any upheaval yet at USPTO. To be fair, I don't think we are expecting as much pain as many other departments are. We are not expecting furloughs, and I feel for those who are. However, history suggests that the furloughed will get back pay after all is said and done.

The Romneys recently had an interview where they said (or implied) that the sequester would not have happened if Romney was pres. That might be true, but I shudder to think of what Romney/Ryan would have inflicted on federal employees (and by extension, services). I've been mad at Obama lately, but I'm not to the point of wishing the other guy had won. Does anybody here wish you'd voted for Romney? (if you did not vote for him in the first place, of course)

klezman


quality posts: 129 Private Messages klezman

Started to do my taxes yesterday. This is a nice annual reminder of the idiocy of the system here. It takes an insane amount of time to figure out what you're supposed to do. If I could vote I'd vote for the guy who promised to simplify this godforsaken system.

Oh. Not to mention that since I still have some money in Canada I need to file two separate items to two separate government departments (IRS and Treasury) to tell them I have money outside the country. This crap makes me so angry. I would pay a higher percentage in Canada than here but I'd be far less angry about it.

2014: 42 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2012 Iron Horse Estate Chardonnay
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
klezman wrote:Started to do my taxes yesterday. This is a nice annual reminder of the idiocy of the system here. It takes an insane amount of time to figure out what you're supposed to do. If I could vote I'd vote for the guy who promised to simplify this godforsaken system.



They all promise that.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
bhodilee wrote:Condoms have a low failure right too, I think we can agree there's room for improvement there though.



I don't think I would agree with that actually. There is a point where the returns you get from additional investment will be so diminished as to make either a reasonable investment next to worthless in improving efficacy or any significant improvement in efficacy so expensive that it's not worth the cost.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
trifecta wrote:Agreed. They just don't care anymore. It is no longer about the strength of America. Unfortunately cuts of this magnitude, in this way, have no hope of a minimal impact.

This level of nonsense makes me supportive of single terms. No more angling for position. Speaker, whip, etc... You're f'n done after your term. Quit trying to get re elected and do your job.



It's less than a 3% cut, in a budget that today is over 38% larger than it was 5 years ago. The impact can (and indeed should) be quite minimal.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
jawlz wrote:It's less than a 3% cut, in a budget that today is over 38% larger than it was 5 years ago. The impact can (and indeed should) be quite minimal.



Weeeeell...I don't think it is a simple 3% across-the-board cut.

klezman


quality posts: 129 Private Messages klezman
jawlz wrote:It's less than a 3% cut, in a budget that today is over 38% larger than it was 5 years ago. The impact can (and indeed should) be quite minimal.



That's kind of like saying 3 people lose their jobs out of 100 and it's a 3% drop in GDP.

2014: 42 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2012 Iron Horse Estate Chardonnay
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 129 Private Messages klezman
kylemittskus wrote:They all promise that.



True. I meant promise with actual details not campaign vagueness

2014: 42 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2012 Iron Horse Estate Chardonnay
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
klezman wrote:That's kind of like saying 3 people lose their jobs out of 100 and it's a 3% drop in GDP.



You're ignoring the 2nd half of the post, which notes that the country's annual budget has increased by ~40% over the last 5 years. And that increase is not all in personnel; there is plenty of room in most federal departmental budgets to absorb a cut of larger than 3% without laying off workers.

As a point of reference, expenditures in 2011 were $3.63 trillion; in 2012 they were $3.79 trillion; 2013 is projected to be $3.80 trillion. A cut of $85 billion ($0.09 trillion, rounding up) will bring the budget in at $3.71 trillion, which is still above where we were just 2 years ago in 2011.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
jawlz wrote:You're ignoring the 2nd half of the post, which notes that the country's annual budget has increased by ~40% over the last 5 years. And that increase is not all in personnel; there is plenty of room in most federal departmental budgets to absorb a cut of larger than 3% without laying off workers.

As a point of reference, expenditures in 2011 were $3.63 trillion; in 2012 they were $3.79 trillion; 2013 is projected to be $3.80 trillion. A cut of $85 billion ($0.09 trillion, rounding up) will bring the budget in at $3.71 trillion, which is still above where we were just 2 years ago in 2011.



I admit I do not know many details about the budget. Hell, I barely know details about my own budget. Clearly we need to scale back, I don't disagree there. But these people we elected, it's their JOB to get this done. They cannot do even the simplest thing. They leave the country in this constant state of uncertainty. A potential shutdown or other disaster is always looming. I feel like we're being governed by third-graders.

rjquillin


quality posts: 182 Private Messages rjquillin

X-post from the pub on taxes...

trifecta wrote:maybe it's just CA. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/03/business/la-fi-mo-california-internet-shoppers-paying-sales-tax-on-shipping-20121102

While I think most of us saw the writing years ago re: we're going to pay tax on internet sales, eventually, this may be a soapbox issue. While not likely to alter much, tax on goods purchased is pretty clear, as is tax on labor or services that increases the value of goods. Labor to restore/repair goods is, still, not taxed. Clearly this is neither and little more than yet another $$$ grab by cash strapped agencies that spend above their incomes.

Carp, this is looking like it belongs in another thread I've been avoiding...

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:X-post from the pub on taxes...
While I think most of us saw the writing years ago re: we're going to pay tax on internet sales, eventually, this may be a soapbox issue. While not likely to alter much, tax on goods purchased is pretty clear, as is tax on labor or services that increases the value of goods. Labor to restore/repair goods is, still, not taxed. Clearly this is neither and little more than yet another $$$ grab by cash strapped agencies that spend above their incomes.

Carp, this is looking like it belongs in another thread I've been avoiding...



It looks like several states have sales tax on shipping and handling. This is an old link but it mentions several states http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0262.htm

rjquillin


quality posts: 182 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:It looks like several states have sales tax on shipping and handling. This is an old link but it mentions several states http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0262.htm

What a morass this is.
I'm a strong believer in states rights, but some uniform, and understandable/rational, tax codes would be a plus. Yeah, I know, hopium.

CT

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

Much as I enjoy not paying taxes for (some) transactions, I don't see why internet sellers should have an automatic advantage over regular stores simply because they sell over the internet. Sales taxes should not discriminate against a particular class of sellers, or in favor of another. I'll end up paying more for my purchases because of it, but I think it is inevitable and proper.

And, on another subject - I don't often agree with Rand Paul, but I fully support his filibuster and continued pressuring of the administration on the issue of drone attacks. This issue should be pushed hard, and extended to a discusion of drone attacks outside the U.S. as well.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

joelsisk


quality posts: 10 Private Messages joelsisk
coynedj wrote:Much as I enjoy not paying taxes for (some) transactions, I don't see why internet sellers should have an automatic advantage over regular stores simply because they sell over the internet. Sales taxes should not discriminate against a particular class of sellers, or in favor of another. I'll end up paying more for my purchases because of it, but I think it is inevitable and proper.



It's interstate commerce, so which state has jurisdiction for taxing the transaction? also a holdover from catalogue sales. This was the reason it wasn't taxed before.