BigBallinStalin wrote: thegreekdog wrote: BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Two things I learned yesterday about this bill:
(1) The $1 million exception is for total sales; not total internet sales. So, a company that sells like $500,000 of product over the internet, but has $3 million of total sales is subject.
(2) More importantly, the law would apply to all remote sellers, not just internet sellers. In other words, if your brick and mortar store sells out of state, it would be subject to this law. Further, companies that sell services may also be subject to this law.
The more I read about this law (not from you BBS, sorry... you can't be the expert in everything related to economics) the more I dislike it for reasons other than those previously stated.
Oh, what have I been incorrect about?
Did I say incorrect? I'm pretty sure I typed "you can't be the expert" not that you're incorrect. The problem with your argument is not the substance of the argument, it's that you're arguing something that is not specific to this law. I would argue the same thing except about sales taxes generally. It's like arguing about the environmental impact of things in an economics discussion
I'm really at a loss here. Could you be more specific?
(Economics and environmental aspects are interrelated...)
I don't think you're really at a loss, but okay.
TGD Point (paraphrased) - "This puts internet sellers on the same footing as brick and mortar stores."
BBS's Argument (paraphrased) - "Taxes [when not linked to state benefits granted] are bad. Therefore this tax is bad."
A fine argument. One that I agree with on a general basis. But why have that discussion in what is ostensibly a discussion about the taxation of products sold over the internet and not about taxation generally? Is "taxes are bad" tangentially relevant? Sure. Is it relevant in the context of explaining why brick-and-mortar stores and internet companies are now on equal footing? No.
To go back to my analogy, in a thread about eminent domain and contract law, bringing up the environmental impact of fracking is irrelevant to the conversation. Is it tangentially relevant? Yes. Is it relevant in the context of responding to a post about contract law? Of course not; it's just white noise.
If I didn't know you better, I would accuse you of trying to change the discussion to suit your particular knowledge and interests (e.g. Player in every thread). But I acknowledge that I'm incredibly egotistical and jumped at the chance to provide knowledgeable insight in this thread... and you've made me angry because you're typing stuff that I think, as an expert, is irrelevant, but it also happens to be stuff that I agree with.