How much would revenues be hurt if we took away all the different state sales taxes, made it something low like 5% (or eliminated it entirely), then increased the income tax by a few percent?
EDIT: Also, some countries charge VAT, and a few online retailers (but not all) include that in the price. Should I be forced to pay VAT for things bought from the UK but imported to NY? Should I pay a use tax in addition to VAT?
For perspective: if you buy something in the US from a state that charges sales tax for online sales, you do have to pay it going the other way - Imported goods in the UK are subject to VAT. The problem is that in the strictest sense, it's not you directly paying VAT (unless you've imported those goods), it's the retailer. They are legally obligated to include the price including VAT except in very specific circumstances, so you know how much you're paying, but if you don't pay the VAT, you are not the one obligated to pay it, the business is.
Same with GST in Australia - Businesses pay GST, and despite passing the cost on to you, they're still the ones with the obligation to pay it, rather than yourself. Also, we are legally obligated to include GST on displayed prices, but online retailers overseas are not, though we don't have to pay GST on goods bought overseas, unless it's over a certain value total. Also, if you buy things in Australia and you're going overseas for an extended period of time(ie, you're just visiting) you can get the GST on most of your purchases refunded from the Government. Consumables like groceries and resturant/bar bills, things like that are exempt, but for consumer goods like cameras, CDs, souvenirs, so on, it's possible.
Not really an argument as to why you should or should not have to, but an explanation as to why you will almost always end up paying VAT when buying UK goods.
Out of curiosity, just what would your design of a good and sane tax law would consist of? Most of the crap I've seen/heard include things such as the so-called "fair" tax, which tends to consist of either a flat rate income tax or a flat rate sales tax in lieu of an income tax. However, I've certainly seen a fair number of arguments saying that neither of these so-called "fair" taxes are in fact fair for various reasons (regressive taxation against the poor being the #1 reason why it's not fair).
I actually don't have a problem with our current system. I have a problem with our current CODE. I took an entire semester course on Federal Income Tax. And we didn't even cover everything. There are so many specific provisions and exceptions that have worked their way in over the years that the code is almost impossible for the average person to navigate.
For instance, we have a tax exemption for the value of airplane travel for the parents of flight attendants because the normal stewardess used to be a young, unmarried woman who would be chaperoned by a parent on the trip. WHY THE FUCK is that still in the code? There's a bunch of crap like that that just needs to go away, and a clean sweep is the best way to do it. Keep the system, re-draft the code from scratch.
Ziggy, our little calico who just turned one year old, passed away this morning due to severe anemia. It's hard losing a pet, but especially one so young and so suddenly.
I've been awake and moving heavy shit since 8AM, it's now 0230, I've had about six hours sleep in three days, and I'm only just finishing off my own gear, because the last few hours have been the first opportunity that I've had to do anything other than empty my bookcases(No small task - it turned out to be five boxes worth, three of them being cubic meter shipping boxes), which I only managed to get done because the moving truck we rented was late thismorning.
Of course, the truck I only found out we were hiring at 10:45 PM yesterday, with zero consultation, which wouldn't be so bad if I was the only prick around here that can drive the fucking thing, along with being one of only two people strong enough to load the thing with furniture.
And I still have to unload at the other end, which will be both my stuff and other people's, though at least the truck is done.
Seriously, fuck this shit. And before anyone mentions it, I not only suggested but insisted upon professional movers - I was vetoed, because they're too expensive, and it's not a long drive to get to the new place.
You know what? Naw. Moving isn't that bad - even doing it yourself - if you're organized, and you have competent, smart people helping you - and preferably ones with a little muscle, too.
I mean, moving into this place, I went from half-packed to fully packed, moved and 90% set up within three hours, and that wasn't a small amount of stuff. The real problem isn't the moving, it's that the only people involved who fit the aforementioned description is my mate who I called in to help me move furniture today. Well, technically yesterday. And myself, I guess. I've been moving for a fucking week and a half - none of it mine. This is just ridiculous.
I moved for a month after work each night. Just boxes of crap, and then I rented a moving truck at the very end to get the furniture. I have the American disease of having things.
I moved for a month after work each night. Just boxes of crap, and then I rented a moving truck at the very end to get the furniture. I have the American disease of having things.
I have this odd habit of moving very quickly. Last five places I've moved out of, my personal gear was packed and shifted within a few hours, usually four or under. I've acquired a little more since the move before last, but not that much more - If I get everything in the van before 5AM, I'm still on my streak. I can fit almost everything I own in my van. Excluding my van, of course, because that would be some downright freaky shit.
@_@ That is dumb on a level I didn't think possible. I mean even if the cartridge hadn't exploded, you would have no control over the direction of the bullet. But then the bullet would have almost no velocity without the barrel to contain the pressure for acceleration.
On a whim I turned the car radio from NPR to Limbaugh. I have not heard so much fear-based advertising in a long time. That and the amount of commercials is staggering.
He taped a .40 S&W cartridge on the end of a bb gun so the bb set off the primer of the cartridge. A .40 S&W is one of the most popular handgun rounds and has a operating pressure of 35,000 psi.
Wait... A BB gun qualifies as a firearm? Isn't gun powder required for a gun to be a firearm?
The gunpowder was in the bullet he tried to fire. Call it an improvised firearm.
That's a stretch. Next your going to tell me that if an idiot puts a bullet in a vice and hits the primer with a hammer the vice is now a firearm?
Under US law, yes. It's a type of zipgun.
Edit: Actually it would be a destructive device :
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and (C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
Thats a Valid point actually. I quoted the wrong law. What I wanted was "Any other weapon" not "destructive device." This one would fall under:
(e) Any other weapon The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive...
Pardon the error. I get the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act confused sometimes.
Even in that section it requires an explosion. BB guns are air powered (CO2 or pump).
While he did use the BB gun as an elaborate firing pin he didn't use an actual firearm. I hesitate to classify it as a zip gun or other makeshift weapon because the BB gun itself is not improvised. In fact the BB gun worked as it should.
This reminds me of jurisdiction creep where a government agency finds itself unable to act so it uses a bad interpretation of a power it does have to justify its action. The most obvious example of jurisdiction creep is when Congress cites interstate commerce as the source of its power to act and then goes through a series of logical contortions to explain that even though no actual commerce is taking place this non-commerce activity actually falls under the commerce clause because commerce could be affected indirectly by the activity ... Blah... Blah... Blah.
More than likely the cop just didn't know what to charge him with and went with a firearm charge.
"The cartridge discharged and fragmented, striking Lloyd in the upper arm and lower leg."
That's discharge of a firearm. The force simply wasn't directed because it wasn't inside of a gun. Also, they charged him with possession of ammunition because he is a convicted felon. We're not gonna bend over backward to help him out here.
Comments
Same with GST in Australia - Businesses pay GST, and despite passing the cost on to you, they're still the ones with the obligation to pay it, rather than yourself. Also, we are legally obligated to include GST on displayed prices, but online retailers overseas are not, though we don't have to pay GST on goods bought overseas, unless it's over a certain value total. Also, if you buy things in Australia and you're going overseas for an extended period of time(ie, you're just visiting) you can get the GST on most of your purchases refunded from the Government. Consumables like groceries and resturant/bar bills, things like that are exempt, but for consumer goods like cameras, CDs, souvenirs, so on, it's possible.
Not really an argument as to why you should or should not have to, but an explanation as to why you will almost always end up paying VAT when buying UK goods.
For instance, we have a tax exemption for the value of airplane travel for the parents of flight attendants because the normal stewardess used to be a young, unmarried woman who would be chaperoned by a parent on the trip. WHY THE FUCK is that still in the code? There's a bunch of crap like that that just needs to go away, and a clean sweep is the best way to do it. Keep the system, re-draft the code from scratch.
You have my sincerest condolences.
Of course, the truck I only found out we were hiring at 10:45 PM yesterday, with zero consultation, which wouldn't be so bad if I was the only prick around here that can drive the fucking thing, along with being one of only two people strong enough to load the thing with furniture.
And I still have to unload at the other end, which will be both my stuff and other people's, though at least the truck is done.
Seriously, fuck this shit. And before anyone mentions it, I not only suggested but insisted upon professional movers - I was vetoed, because they're too expensive, and it's not a long drive to get to the new place.
I mean, moving into this place, I went from half-packed to fully packed, moved and 90% set up within three hours, and that wasn't a small amount of stuff. The real problem isn't the moving, it's that the only people involved who fit the aforementioned description is my mate who I called in to help me move furniture today. Well, technically yesterday. And myself, I guess. I've been moving for a fucking week and a half - none of it mine. This is just ridiculous.
Does it piss anyone else off that I have to buy a thinkpad to get a laptop with clit mouse?
This is on the level of banging the back of a bullet with a hammer.
Not that it would work. But it was at least an attempt at an improvised firearm.
Edit: Actually it would be a destructive device :
I quoted the wrong law. What I wanted was "Any other weapon" not "destructive device." This one would fall under: Pardon the error. I get the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act confused sometimes.
While he did use the BB gun as an elaborate firing pin he didn't use an actual firearm. I hesitate to classify it as a zip gun or other makeshift weapon because the BB gun itself is not improvised. In fact the BB gun worked as it should.
This reminds me of jurisdiction creep where a government agency finds itself unable to act so it uses a bad interpretation of a power it does have to justify its action. The most obvious example of jurisdiction creep is when Congress cites interstate commerce as the source of its power to act and then goes through a series of logical contortions to explain that even though no actual commerce is taking place this non-commerce activity actually falls under the commerce clause because commerce could be affected indirectly by the activity ... Blah... Blah... Blah.
More than likely the cop just didn't know what to charge him with and went with a firearm charge.
That's discharge of a firearm. The force simply wasn't directed because it wasn't inside of a gun. Also, they charged him with possession of ammunition because he is a convicted felon. We're not gonna bend over backward to help him out here.