Why should a co. pay a tax in a state and another co. not pay a tax in the same state for the exact same service?
I find this whole thing infuriating. I continue to trim my budget, and buying online has been a big plus in that goal. Being self employed, I already pay my fair share, believe me. This tax becomes law, I have to cut back more because I refuse to go into debt (been there). It infuriates me because this forces me to trim further when congress absolutely won't. Last, but not least, if this was about ma and pop brick and mortar, I feel pretty damn certain Walmart wouldn't be pushing it (along with others the article didn't name). It's just another example of our senators being bought and paid for by the biggest bidders. It's time to clean out the whole nest. I hope the sheep wake up by next election. I won't hold my breath, though.
You could ask the same of Apple. How did the company ever get by before all its current departments came along? The answer is, it was smaller and simpler.
What a stupid comparison, why is it products and services in the private sector almost always become better, and cheaper over time, where as products and services in the government almost always become worse and more expensive over time?
This isn't a religious view for me and I don't always walk the walk, when shopping online I compare my total out of pocket expenses and on high ticket items the sales tax comes into the equation. I'm mainly making the point it is reasonable for local businesses and state governments to want sales tax on internet sales. And to answer your reply the out of state businesses aren't the ones being taxed it is the instate purchasers who are paying the tax and they are receiving services from the state.
Sorry but this is in fact a stupid comparison. Apple was a smaller and more simple privately owned company until demand for their products shot through the roof, and they expanded only to meet that demand. On the other hand, govt expands at a cost to everyone, and many times not to meet any demand but their own. A better example would be something like apple expanding even though their sales are shrinking. lol. Look, many of the obvious and necessary laws have already been passed, PLUS many that simply aren't needed at all, and benefit no one but the law makers and their special interests. Think 'the law of diminishing returns' but just replace diminishing with NEGATIVE when referring to govt, we're getting less (or nothing, or worse) as govt expands at this point. Another way to look at it is Apple's growth was financed as they expanded, whereas govt expands and then looks for financing. I also left out the fact that federal government has limits imposed on it by our Constitution. Meaning even if there is 'demand' from the public to do this or that, they don't have the authority to do anything they wish just cause it's popular with the public at the moment (they obviously don't let this FACT get in their way though). "I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Ludlow Monticello, September 6, 1824 (<-- haha what would he think NOW?)
And an untrue one. Talking to max about economics is like talking to a strict religious fundamentalist, unweilding, unthinking and uncompromising.