View Full Version : Desperation in California
I got a letter today from the California revenue department asking me to sign up to collect sales tax for them. Nobody bothered to tell them that I'm not a Californian, not located in California and not subject to California laws. Man they are really getting desperate. What they really need to do is to fire that incompetent state legislature. That would do more good than any revenue raising activity they could ever mount.
FryBoy
04-13-2009, 04:31 PM
Just send the money to me, and I'll see that it gets to the right people.
thombrogan
04-13-2009, 04:33 PM
Since he owes them nothing, he may have already sent it to you.
heyhung
04-13-2009, 04:33 PM
Fred,
were they asking you to charge CA residents sales tax when/if they buy from your store, even though you don't have an outpost in CA?
how did they justify that application? I'm intensely curious, because the whole thing in NY and NJ about collecting sales tax through the internet is kind of changing the whole playing field for online sales (and those of us who buy lots online)
Cheers, Herb
Yes, that's what they asked. They don't justify it. They simply demand it in the normal governmental arrogant way. It might work. They might get some hapless internet merchant to go for it. Who knows?
The problem these states fail to understand is that non residents aren't subject to their laws. We are subject to the laws in the states in which we operate. In my case that is Indiana. Indiana does not have a law requiring me to collect taxes for any state other than Indiana.
It is an interesting question. Where did the transaction take place? Well our web server is in Michigan even though we aren't. The credit card processor is in Nebraska even though we aren't. Most people would agree that the transaction took place in Indiana since that is where my business is located and where the order was processed. But I suppose some state bureaucrat can justify whatever to his superiors who are going through an economic crisis because they have a state legislature that doesn't understand the meaning of enough spending.
All I can say is nice try.
FryBoy
04-13-2009, 05:37 PM
You might find this editorial from today's Los Angeles Times to be of interest: California's Missing On-Line Money (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-tax13-2009apr13,0,1433832.story)
I suspect the law will be changed eventually, but enforcement is going to be a bitch.
As the internet takes market share from in state retail stores, the states need to use means other than sales tax to produce their revenue. Duh! Apparently, it hasn't occurred to any of them.
FryBoy
04-13-2009, 06:08 PM
Well, actually, Fred, I think they've tried every other source they can find, and they aren't about to give up on any of them. Don't hold your breath for sales tax to go away. Hell, the California legislature just raised ours another 1% -- it's now 9.25% in L.A. County! Makes the deals on Amazon and on sites like yours seem all the more attractive.
I don't think will have any choice. Truthfully. They will need to move sales tax over to property or income tax or something else. There is no way 45 or states are going to get people like me to collect taxes for them and then be subject to audit. I don't think it can be done. California needs to get spending under control just the Federal Government. They think they can go on forever this way. They can't. Vote out all incumbents.
vote out all incumbents!! i like that, how about have it rephrased to vote in ppl with common sense?
It doesn't work. The people who seek political office don't seem to have any interests other their own in mind. So whether they have common sense or not isn't at issue. They won't exercise it. I think the the only solution is to recycle them every term of office. Get new ones in every time. Doesn't matter which party they are, just vote for the other party every time. That's what I do. Last election I voted against every incumbent.
ChrisLehrer
04-14-2009, 09:17 AM
My goodness, an anarchist who's into knives. Hmmm... Your middle initial wouldn't be "V", would it, perchance?
thombrogan
04-14-2009, 09:28 AM
vote out all incumbents!! i like that, how about have it rephrased to vote in ppl with common sense?
Like Fred said. Anyone who should be in office is too busy doing something productive to be bothered. Plus, such people tend to be honest and honesty doesn't get votes.
ChrisLehrer,
His middle initial is "M."
but then there would be no incentive to be re-elected. i were them i'd just try to cash in as much as possible and help myself even more so to maximize my 1 term :p
My goodness, an anarchist who's into knives. Hmmm... Your middle initial wouldn't be "V", would it, perchance?
Why do you say I'm an anarchist? That isn't true. I'm an American who hates corruption in politics. I think the most important thing we can do as Americans is to put a single term limit on all elected offices. Since the holders of the elected offices will never approve that, then voting against all incumbents is all we have. The truth is whatever political party is in power is pretty minor. They both seem to have equal amounts of corruption and fiscal stupidity. It is more important that we rotate them out of office.
but then there would be no incentive to be re-elected. i were them i'd just try to cash in as much as possible and help myself even more so to maximize my 1 term :p
Precisely. We need to get rid of that incentive to be re-elected. What we need are people in political office with just a tiny bit of concern for the common good instead of their own political futures. The corruption in Congress revolves mostly around funding re-election campaigns. Move the people in and out to remove or reduc that incentive. We'll get fresh blood and less corruption.
ChrisLehrer
04-14-2009, 02:19 PM
Hasn't anybody read (or seen -- the movie was mediocre, but the material was unfilmable) "V for Vendetta"? Oh well.
joecil
04-14-2009, 02:32 PM
I've always found state governments a bit strange in why people would run for office. I had a high school government teacher who's husband was a state Representative in Florida. Now in those days they got paid about $10 a year and he spent well over a $100K for his election. Now this guy was a high dollar lawyer to begin with so asked the obvious question why. Here answer that he would do a couple of terms then go back into private practice and his rates would be 5X greater. I took her at her word on that though the next semester they divorced. Makes one wonder about those that run though. Oh and I graduated from High School in '64.
5X greater? I don't think so. Around here lawyers cost $200 per hour. I can't imagine one getting $1000 per hour around here even if his last name were Christ.
joecil
04-14-2009, 03:01 PM
This was 1963 Fred and times have changed, think back what a lawyer made then. However it is still true though I think now it is more from the jobs they can land once out of government in the way of a lobbyist.
Q_Egg
04-14-2009, 05:17 PM
No worries .... duh feds will start collecting tax on all the xactions and promise to redistribute to the states ..... uhuh, uhuh, .....
I was recently startled when I got a phone call invite to listen in on a 'town hall' meeting with one of our US senators.
dang! I thought they had both passed on and I missed the 'viewings'.:( (for you not in UT, that is 'wakes').:eek:
Hey! one term is a great idea .... just make dang sure they don't get full retirement benefits afterward .
Tom B
felmac
04-25-2009, 05:42 PM
"It doesn't matter who you vote for -- the government always gets in."
TheBoardSMITH
04-27-2009, 06:48 AM
"It doesn't matter who you vote for -- the government always gets in." Gets in our pockets!
Got to give them credit for hanging in there. They sent me a letter and form telling me that, if I don't fill out the form, they will refer my case to the audit division. Of course, even though I would answer no to the entire questionnaire, I would never actually comply. The last thing we want is to have a destitute and incompetently run state trolling the internet for business addresses and then harrassing companies in other states. It is disreputable.
I wonder if the audit division is going to fly out here and visit me? :)
Guys, government is truly getting out of hand. The federal government is destroying our future economy and even "foreign" states are preying on businesses. Bad. Really bad.
As an update, I got a call from someone in the California controller's office pestering me about collecting taxes. I'm guessing they have me confused with somebody that has an operation there. But, Dr. Governator, here's another place you can cut the budget. Having people troll the internet for email addresses so you can pester them about collecting taxes for you isn't going to solve your financial crisis. Cutting spending big time and getting rid of an incompetent legislature are steps in the right direction. I'm thinking it might make sense to get a new Governor as well.
Roman505
06-11-2009, 07:18 PM
Removing the incentive to be re-elected, which is in one sense to be rewarded for your work, seems unlikely to me to promote good governance, as kc said. However, my observation over a very long time is that the voters' best strategy is to make sure no dominant legislator (president/prime minister etc) serves more than two consecutive terms. In their third and later tems being re-elected and nest-feathering become their only interests of note and they mis-spend our money accordingly.
agree with you david, but there are also ppl who should serve for life because their head is in the right place. it's too bad because the other 99.99% of politician who only care about being re-elected ruined it for them.
Octaveman
06-11-2009, 10:15 PM
This cracks me up Fred.
I hope chp don't goto Indiana to arrest fred for back taxes.....
Roman505
06-11-2009, 10:45 PM
Perhaps I should not get too far off-forum here, but I shall anyway :p
People's heads might start in the right place but usually because their ideas are developed in contest, where they had to think them through because they lacked the power to impose them. Once they have the power and the first set of ideas done, then what next? Whatever they dream up next can be done by virtue of their existing power and the ideas can drift and be flawed because there is no longer a meaningful contest for them. This is the detailed version of Gibbon's "Power corrupts" which is too often interpreted as referring merely to licentious or illegal behaviour rather than corroded or self-centred thinking.
I do not deny individual differences, that some people's principles are more durable than others', but strategically I think I am right. (Nice to know I agree with myself, eh? LOL)
I promise not to wander off like that again :o :)
Removing the incentive to be re-elected, which is in one sense to be rewarded for your work, seems unlikely to me to promote good governance, .
I can't disagree more strongly. Incumbency and the corruption by power you mentioned yourself are the basic problem with our democracy. If we had a single term limit for every politician we would attract more people who want to "make a difference" instead of people who want a power career. We reduce corruption by a huge amount. Government is public. People want to be known for doing a good job. That is the reward people really seek. They seek reelection for power, not as a reward for their work.
I hope chp don't goto Indiana to arrest fred for back taxes.....
They are welcome come to arrest me but it won't get them any back taxes. There aren't any back taxes. I have no idea what their next move will be but I can't wait to find out.
Roman505
06-12-2009, 05:06 AM
I like the idea, Fred. I am less confident it would prove a working compromise.
cheers
I don't think our democracy will survive as the founders conceived it without single term limits. What is going on now is unconstitutional and I can't think of anything else that will stop it.
ksskss
06-12-2009, 09:32 AM
Fred, as much as I am in complete accord with your viewpoints, the CA tax folks are the LAST people I'd fool around with. They make the Feds look like girl scouts and getting root canals is more fun thean the Feds. I'd get it resolved ASAP with them, since it seems they are 'confused' before they escalate things. Cut this one off at the pass. It seems they are chasing the wrong guy here. Good luck. Their error, but your problem.
---
Ken
Not my problem and I won't let it be my problem. I'm more than content to take them on. I have no fear of them at all. Why should I? They have no power over me at all. They can bluster until they are blue in the face but they have no power here. I'm reeeeealy angry about what they are doing and I will escalate it as far they want to go. Bring it on.
What is going on now is unconstitutional and I can't think of anything else that will stop it.
he who has has the gold makes the rules. good luck changing that one.
beware the military-industrial complex. beware the medical-industrial complex. it's all horrifying.
love your attitude fred! give 'em a good what for.
he who has has the gold makes the rules. good luck changing that one.
The constitution lays out some rules as well and these turkeys seem to have forgotten that part of their oath where they promised to defend it. Saying it's OK because they have power is not an acceptable answer. We Americans shouldn't allow them to get away with it. We Americans are sheep being led to the slaughter. Vote out all incumbents. If we let it continue will will arrive at the point of becoming a dead, government regulated and managed society.
doctors take a hippocratic oath that says first do no harm.
no doubt these turkeys have forgotten that one as well.
the opinion section of the la times has a contrary take on term limits:
Term limits: Despite the claims of backers, the 1990 term-limits initiative did not get rid of career politicians -- it simply changed the arc of their careers. Instead of spending decades in the same Assembly or Senate district seat, legislators position themselves for the next office -- or job as a lobbyist -- as soon as they arrive in Sacramento. The up-or-out system rewards short-term, self-interested political thinking more than long-term policymaking in the public interest. Term limits also make lobbyists, not the Legislature, the repository of Capitol expertise; that lobbyists are useful in raising campaign cash adds an overlay of soft corruption to the process.
There is a hierarchy in Congress that follows seniority. Single term limits would get rid of that. Personally, I'd rather see people not pursue a career in politics. I'd rather they run for office, to do their thing and then return to what they were doing before. If they really want to pursue a political career, then running for a different office each term sounds dandy to me. That keeps things rotating. If they want to lobby for a while that's dandy with me too. I want to get rid of members of Congress before they lose sight of the common good. I'd rather the President had a single 8 year term than 2 4 year terms. That would reduce the corruption at least a little. If the lobbyists have the knowledge then that would make them valuable to the legislators. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that. I have no problem with each side making their case and letting the elected officials decide. I just want them to decide based more on public interest and less on self interest.
In other words, if you have single term limits in California, I would guess it is a good thing even if people continue to pursue a career in politics. I'd like to see it everywhere. So I would disagree with the LA Times. I usually do.
FryBoy
06-26-2009, 08:18 PM
That may have worked pretty well in 1790, Fred. However, it's terribly idealistic to think it would work today.
The issues are numerous and incredibly complex. The printed federal budget (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/browse.html) -- more than $2,921,800,000,000 -- is nearly a foot thick and covers several thousand programs, departments, bureaus, offices, etc., each with a purpose and a vocal constituency. State budgets and even some county and city budgets are nearly as complex, only smaller. Which programs do we cut? Which do we expand? How do we fund those we keep? Whose ox gets gored?
Single-term elected officials, especially congressmen who serve for only two years, simply don't have the time to learn and understand the intricacies of the matters before them, much less the labyrinth of the legislative process itself. Instead, these dolts end up relying on professional staff (i.e., bureaucrats) and lobbyists (and maybe radio talk-show hosts) for guidance, or worse, they simply become ideologues and party hacks who vote their "conscience" instead of their brains.
This is particular true as more often than not these days we end up electing single-issue boobs (gun control, no gun control, abortion, right-to-life, no new taxes, free healthcare for everyone and their dog(s), etc.) who have little or no interest in or understanding of other matters. It's E X A C T L Y what has happened here in California and why we're facing a $28 Billion deficit.
Government is no place for amateurs.
The issues are numerous and incredibly complex.
No they aren't. They are made complex by government for many reason, one of which is to obfuscate what they are doing.
The printed federal budget (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/browse.html) -- more than $2,921,800,000,000 -- is nearly a foot thick and covers several thousand programs, departments, bureaus, offices, etc., each with a purpose and a vocal constituency. State budgets and even some county and city budgets are nearly as complex, only smaller. Which programs do we cut? Which do we expand? How do we fund those we keep? Whose ox gets gored?
You want my opinion? OK. Federal govenment should do three things and three things only. It should defend the country from other countries (department of defense.) It should deal and treat with other countries (department of state.) It should deal with interstate legal issues and conflicts (department of justice.) Everything else either shouldn't be done in government at all or should be done at state or local level. We are supposedly a union of states, not a central government with provinces. Whose ox gets gored? Everybody's ox. If I had my way, we would cut the federal budget by 70%. Is that going to happen? Obviously not but you asked the question.
Single-term elected officials, especially congressmen who serve for only two years, simply don't have the time to learn and understand the intricacies of the matters before them, much less the labyrinth of the legislative process itself. Instead, these dolts end up relying on professional staff (i.e., bureaucrats) and lobbyists (and maybe radio talk-show hosts) for guidance, or worse, they simply become ideologues and party hacks who vote their "conscience" instead of their brains.
I didn't say they should have a 2 year term. I said they should have 1 term. Make it 10 years if you like. Those "dolts" aren't more or less doltish than they would be with one term. They are just more corrupt and self interested.
This is particular true as more often than not these days we end up electing single-issue boobs (gun control, no gun control, abortion, right-to-life, no new taxes, free healthcare for everyone and their dog(s), etc.) who have little or no interest in or understanding of other matters. It's E X A C T L Y what has happened here in California and why we're facing a $28 Billion deficit.
That's just an example of a society turning over its freedom to its government. Has nothing to do with term limits.
Government is no place for amateurs.
Of course not. That's why the departments of government have career employees. I'm talking about politicians, not professionals. Legislators get worse with experience, not better. I've seen it all my life. Election to office has no bearing on intelligence or wisdom. You know that as well as I do.
Government is no place for amateurs.
that's why democracy doesn't work? wtf do amateurs know right? :p how can you trust a bunch of amateurs to elect a good government?
:p
that's why democracy doesn't work? wtf do amateurs know right? :p how can you trust a bunch of amateurs to elect a good government?
:p
I think my point is that the structure and methodology of government is now so corrupt that you can't elect a good government. If you let the zoo animals cast a vote instead of the people, you would end up with the same government. You end up with the same government regardless of political party as well.
What people don't understand is many of the issues. The reason is that their sources for information are dishonest and partisan. So people simply choose a party and vote for members of that party instead of voting for issues and the common interest. Yes, the voters share as much blame as the politicians.
The ideal government is probably the benevolent dictatorship. However, it is so rare that a dictator can avoid corruption that it is simply too dangerous to be practical. Democracy is fine. We just need a lot less of it so that what the politicians do does less harm or less good or less of everything. Power should be in the people and, sadly, the people's power declines every year and the government's power grows.
Rob Babcock
06-27-2009, 08:20 AM
that's why democracy doesn't work? wtf do amateurs know right? :p how can you trust a bunch of amateurs to elect a good government?
:p
I wish the amateurs had a say. It's the professional, lifelong leeches that run this joint. As is often the case, be it knives or politics, I find myself in near-complete agreement with Fred!:eek: ;)
Fred for President!:D *
* Not that I'd wish that on anyone...
I think my point is that the structure and methodology of government is now so corrupt that you can't elect a good government. If you let the zoo animals cast a vote instead of the people, you would end up with the same government. You end up with the same government regardless of political party as well.
What people don't understand is many of the issues. The reason is that their sources for information are dishonest and partisan. So people simply choose a party and vote for members of that party instead of voting for issues and the common interest. Yes, the voters share as much blame as the politicians.
The ideal government is probably the benevolent dictatorship. However, it is so rare that a dictator can avoid corruption that it is simply too dangerous to be practical. Democracy is fine. We just need a lot less of it so that what the politicians do does less harm or less good or less of everything. Power should be in the people and, sadly, the people's power declines every year and the government's power grows.
it's true, i really do feel that the result of our government would be exactly the same if all the votes are cast by monkeys. same 2 party, same ppl, same nothing getting done.
and i also completely agree with you that best government is benevolent dictatorship. i'm all for it, and i guess my perspective is different from democracy loving americans. chinese has over 5000 years of history of empiror. there were as many tyrants as there were benevolent empiror who really cared for the people. and also, many of them understood that making the people happy solidify their rules and only give them more power to do more things and grow the empire bigger adn stronger.
and when the dynasty is not working, they fall and the process starts over...
Even benevolent dictatorships are riddled with problems. Two 20th century dictators that I think were fairly benevolent were Tito and Franco. Both of them succumbed in the end. Democracy is a better system overrall. But when the power moves from the people to the government, then it isn't a democracy any longer. The U.S. becomes less and less democratic every year as the people abdicate their power to elected officials.
Look at Iran. I believe the Iranians - or at least some of them - think they have a democracy. Obviously they don't. They have a dictatorship with a few of trappings of democracy like elections to make things seem like the people have power. Same thing in Russia and many other countries. We are approaching that point because our elections are becoming meaningless. They change the people in power but they don't change the way government works, they don't address the corruption and they don't reverse the movement of power away from the people to the government. We just get the same thing with different names.
The fundamental changes we need should work to reverse that. Single term limits are a start in the right direction. They certainly aren't the whole answer. I'm not a political scientist. I'm just a concerned citizen who doesn't like what he's been seeing for the past few years.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.