On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
> The best solution for California would be to get rid of Propositions
> and let government do i
Propositions definitely are terrible. Perfect example of unintended
consequences.
-Cameron
...
~~
Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> Sure - too big, too small. Taking government to either extreme is
> bad. I think California would be better off as several smaller
> states. If California were on the east coast, how many current states
> would it swallow? 7? 8? Would that be workable? Not sure
Sure - too big, too small. Taking government to either extreme is
bad. I think California would be better off as several smaller
states. If California were on the east coast, how many current states
would it swallow? 7? 8? Would that be workable? Not sure.
-Cameron
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at
Trust me. As someone who has spent a large portion of her time in the
last five years dealing with jurisdictions and bureaucracies in the
California, the last thing needed here is more local government.
Every little wide spot in the road wants their own mayor, police
chief, and governing body. T
I say we chisel LA off and send it out into the ocean. They could
declare themselves the independent state of Hollywood. As a bonus,
lots of happy people in SoCal would be thrilled at their new
waterfront property.
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> A split would never happe
A split would never happen. Too much political power in the number of
electoral votes. It would alter the political landscape for decades.
And you're probably right, nobody wants LA. Maybe a three way split is
necessary.
J
-
Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad re
I think breaking Cali into two parts is a fantastic idea. Too much energy is
spent trying to satisfy the needs of such a huge area... California is the
size of ten (or more) east coats states put together.
It would be tough at first but good in the long run to have more local
government de
If the residents of NorCal did not have to support those of SoCal, we
would be prosperous indeed. The only real drain on resources in
NorCal is the crime nexus in Oakland and Richmond. Given sufficient
revenue that did not have to go to fix LA and San Bernardino, we could
fix that as well.
On S
ty.
Sandy
-Original Message-
From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 12:21 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: California tells online retailers to start collecting sales
taxes from customers
Yea!!! Let 'em go. But they can't have the water from NorCal.
Yea!!! Let 'em go. But they can't have the water from NorCal.
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> In other CA related news:
> Official Calls For Riverside, 12 Other Counties To Secede From California
>
> Excerpt:
> Is the state of California about to go South?
>
> Riversi
In other CA related news:
Official Calls For Riverside, 12 Other Counties To Secede From California
Excerpt:
Is the state of California about to go South?
Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone apparently thinks so, after proposing
that the county lead a campaign for as many as 13 Southern C
"(1.) California residents used to be able to buy books from, say, Amazon
and not pay sales tax."
California residents will still be able to buy books from Amazon and not pay
a sales tax. Distribution will come from another state and referrals from
CA will not be paid.
J
-
It is incumbent on
On Jul 2, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Maureen wrote:
> Personally, I think a national sales tax on everything but food,
> medicine and services to replace the current income tax system would
> solve a bunch of problems - and would be collectible across the board
> from all retail sales.
FairTax
-Cam
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> And, if I am, then it means that if states want more revenues they
> need to look to a new model other than sales tax because that's not
> viable any longer.
>
> In other words, the sales tax revenue model have been disrupted and
> now states
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Yes. Amazon does not collect sales tax in any state. Several states
> have passed laws requiring that online merchants collect state sales
> tax.
>>
Thanks v much for the schooling. Wow, complicated and interesting.
It's very hard to see how
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> Help requested!
>
> So if I have this straight:
>
> (1.) California residents used to be able to buy books from, say,
> Amazon and not pay sales tax.
Yes. Amazon does not collect sales tax in any state. Several states
have passed laws requ
Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "B&N moved their affiliate program to Linkshare and seem to be snapping up
> Amazon's former affiliates at the rapid rate. It took them less than ten
> minutes to approve my request to join their program. It usually takes
> several days."
>
> Well, that seems to be a good
"B&N moved their affiliate program to Linkshare and seem to be snapping up
Amazon's former affiliates at the rapid rate. It took them less than ten
minutes to approve my request to join their program. It usually takes
several days."
Well, that seems to be a good bit of news.
J
-
Ninety percen
Barnes and Noble charges sales tax, as do numerous others with
physical stores in the state.
Amazon does not have physical stores, so the CA legislature put in the
"presence in state" verbiage.
B&H is doing the same as Amazon. I got my affiliate notice today that
they will no longer be paying re
The old hacking/phreaking magazine, 2600, got it's name from the dial tone
frequency that would allow you to make free calls from pay phones. You use to
be able to make a "tone box" that could be held up to a phone to make it do all
sorts of things.
There were other tricks too... I seen to r
It used to, but the telcos changed that reay quickly. You also used
to be able to get access to a test line by blowing a toy whistle into
the receiver. Security through obscurity!
On 7/1/2011 12:06 PM, G Money wrote:
> One part of that movie I always loved as a kid was when Broderick's
What's a phone booth?
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:06 AM, G Money wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
>>
>> > But WarGames?
>>
>> Yeah, something about that 300 baud phone cradle modem just can't be
>> replicated in any modern day equivalent that's anywhere ne
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> > But WarGames?
>
> Yeah, something about that 300 baud phone cradle modem just can't be
> replicated in any modern day equivalent that's anywhere near as cool.
>
One part of that movie I always loved as a kid was when Broderick's
"Where is Hillary Clinton with her red reset button when we need her?"
Scheming to get the Democrat Nomination in 2012?
J
-
When they call the roll in the Senate, the senators do not know whether to
answer present or not guilty. - Theodore Roosevelt
~~
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Vivec wrote:
>
> If something this drastic and sweeping does not work, do people in
> California Government that came up with this scheme get fired? Or is it just
> business as usual?
California is broken, just like the US is broken. Where is Hillary
Clinton with
"Not if they structure their LLC's and assets correctly ;) There are many
moves in the game of tax chess. The rule of the game is always to play
within the blurred lines."
This is so true.
Ironically, one party blasts people for not paying taxes and using these
loop holes while the ones doing th
"I read somewhere that they are remaking that movie."
They made a sequel. Direct to dvd quality.
I watched it via netflix streaming. It was about as bad as you are
imagining it is.
J
-
The power to tax involves the power to destroy. - John Marshall
> But WarGames?
Yeah, something about that 300 baud phone cradle modem just can't be
replicated in any modern day equivalent that's anywhere near as cool.
-Cameron
...
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://ww
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:39 AM, G Money wrote:
> > I read somewhere that they are remaking that movie.
> >
> > *sigh*
>
> Again? They did once already. Terrible, terrible, terrible remake.
>
there is only one kind of remake I unde
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:39 AM, G Money wrote:
> I read somewhere that they are remaking that movie.
>
> *sigh*
Again? They did once already. Terrible, terrible, terrible remake.
-Cameron
...
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Medic wrote:
>
> >
> > "The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" -
> > WOPR
> >
>
> Later. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War
>
I read somewhere that they are remaking that movie.
*sigh*
~
>
> "The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" -
> WOPR
>
Later. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Sam wrote:
> Many online retails charge tax for States they have offices in. I
> can't place if they are major or not, I usually manage to avoid it
> either way.
Some do, some don't. Amazon is among the most vocal of the
non-participants for sure.
-Cameron
...
Many online retails charge tax for States they have offices in. I
can't place if they are major or not, I usually manage to avoid it
either way.
.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Sam wrote:
>> Amazon has ignored it claiming individu
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Erika L. Rich wrote:
> Not if they structure their LLC's and assets correctly ;) There are many
> moves in the game of tax chess.
> The rule of the game is always to play within the blurred lines.
"The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of che
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Sam wrote:
> Amazon has ignored it claiming individual State tax laws
> don't apply to them since they were written before the internet.
This should read "Every major online retailer has ignored it"
-Cameron
...
~
Oops, I actually read the article and it says they only pay tax if
there's a connection to Cali. Well that makes sense that co's would
want to move out because of the size of the market. But that's always
been a law. Amazon has ignored it claiming individual State tax laws
don't apply to them sinc
People in Cali will still shop online and pay the tax so some slacker
with a generous pension can still collect awesome benefits So what if
a few thousand companies stop paying tax?
As for link revenue, the reason Amazon is not paying is because the
don't want to ship to CA.
You should still get
Not if they structure their LLC's and assets correctly ;) There are many
moves in the game of tax chess.
The rule of the game is always to play within the blurred lines.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Erika L. Rich wrote:
> > Majori
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Erika L. Rich wrote:
> Majority I speak to are doing #3 or #4, incorporating in a state that
> doesn't require the collection of taxes.
So really, in this little game of tax chess, Amazon's actions are
going to result in fewer California companies and more compan
Majority I speak to are doing #3 or #4, incorporating in a state that
doesn't require the collection of taxes.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:33 PM, G Money wrote:
> > So that would be $165 million in additional revenue...though it's
> pr
Just change the company information in Amazon. That's what most of the
affiliate marketers I know have done. Taken out the state LLC/Corp that
requires tax, and replaced with one from a state that didn't require it.
Their links didn't change, just the company receiving the paycheck.
On Thu, Jun
They won't make anything.
If the companies pull out, then there is no tax to Collect and you just end
up with a Net LOSS since you aren't collecting the income tax either.
If something this drastic and sweeping does not work, do people in
California Government that came up with this scheme get f
I suspect Amazon is still tracking the links, and probably will make
good on any commissions once the issue is resolved.
All of my links are generated from the database with deep linking via
the API, so taking them down, or changing them to another retailer
would a a trivial effort - just change
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Maureen wrote:
> I already have an LLC in Georgia, but its a total pain to have to
> rearrange all of this when in the long term, Amazon is going to get
> taxed because they have real business entities in in Calfornia, like
> A9, with is in Palo Alto and the compa
I already have an LLC in Georgia, but its a total pain to have to
rearrange all of this when in the long term, Amazon is going to get
taxed because they have real business entities in in Calfornia, like
A9, with is in Palo Alto and the company that makes the Kindle.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:21 P
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Maureen wrote:
> Nope, because the state will spend most of that "windfall" defending
> the law in court and losing.
>
> And in the interim, I just lost half my income because Amazon and
> other retailers have shut down the affiliate programs for everyone in
> Cal
I'm definitely in the no camp.
I don't even think it will net the 150 million after you consider the loss
of income taxes on employees and other considerations.
Similar to the Laffer Curve but no exactly.
J
-
Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. -
Henry
Nope, because the state will spend most of that "windfall" defending
the law in court and losing.
And in the interim, I just lost half my income because Amazon and
other retailers have shut down the affiliate programs for everyone in
California as of this morning.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:33 A
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:44 PM, PT wrote:
> If they would use that money to pay down their debt, it might help, but
> I foresee "Woohoo. We have 165 million in free money!" *spendspendspend*
Yup, and California is already EXTREMELY unfriendly to business, they
really tax the crap out of everyt
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:33 PM, G Money wrote:
> So that would be $165 million in additional revenue...though it's probably
> much more than that, since all of those companies certainly won't leave the
> state.
Actually, the way I read this, if Amazon refuses to pay it's
affiliates in CA commis
It would be interesting to know what the profit margins are like for
these companies. If the industry is too thin for companies to survive,
that means more closed business, no income tax from them, more
unemployed people who can't afford to buy anything to pay income tax on
I am sure t
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> So, anyone actually think this will be the windfall CA says it will be?
>
>
well.$317 - $152 = $165.
So that would be $165 million in additional revenue...though it's probably
much more than that, since all of those companies cert
California tells online retailers to start collecting sales taxes from
customers
Excerpts:
Beginning Friday, a new state law will require large out-of-state retailers
to collect sales taxes on purchases that their California customers make on
the Internet a prospect eased only slightly by a 1
54 matches
Mail list logo
