4 ms·

> I want goods and services delivered to me as efficiently as possible. You know what makes deliveries more efficient? State funded infrastructure. now, how c

> I want goods and services delivered to me as efficiently as possible. You know what makes deliveries more efficient? State funded infrastructure. now, how could we finance such a thing...

runjake 14y ago
No national sales tax currently exists, to my knowledge. So this is a new precedent. And to answer your question, we could finance such things by avoiding wars, shutting down needless agencies, and so on. People are already struggling, burdening them with a tax that will generate revenue that is peanuts compared to what we're spending on our wars. Doesn't make sense to me.
- Avshalom 14y ago
  This is not a national sales tax. This is existing state sales tax being applied to an additional category of sales. In the US much of the infrastructure -like roads and bridges- is ostensibly state funded so decreasing the federal deficit wouldn't necessarily have any effect.
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  > No national sales tax currently exists, to my knowledge. So this is a new precedent. No, because, despite the media calling the Marketplace Fairness Act an "Internet Sales Tax", the bill is not a national (or any other) tax. It is a bill which conditionally lifts existing barriers to states extending their sales taxes to cover online retailers selling goods to people in the state. If the bill passes, then states with sales taxes would have to choose whether or not to meet the conditions set in order to extend those taxes to internet retailers selling into the state. No tax is created directly by the bill, and any tax enabled by the bill would be a state tax, not a national tax. > People are already struggling, burdening them with a tax that will generate revenue that is peanuts compared to what we're spending on our wars. Most states aren't using any of the taxes they collect to fund wars, and the central purpose of this isn't so much to raise new revenues (though it will enable states to do some of that) as to eliminate the tax incentives that currently exist which favor out-of-state internet-based retailers over in-state retailers (internet-based or brick-and-mortar) due to the inability of states to levy the same taxes on the former as the latter.
the_watcher 14y ago
Actually, it's infrastructure that makes deliveries efficient. State funding is only one avenue for creating it. Many would argue state funding is inefficient.
adventured 14y ago
State funded infrastructure? If only they'd actually spend tax dollars on that instead of lying to get the taxes and then spending the money elsewhere. They're collecting record taxes at the state level, and our infrastructure is in the worst shape it has been in since pre-interstate highway system days, so now what? Raise taxes some more, so they can make more empty promises and redirect funds to pet projects instead of infrastructure? How in the world does this band of criminals deserve any trust such that they should get more money to spend, before they prove they can actually work with the $6.x trillion they already get to spend (nearly the size of China's entire economy, and we can't even fix bridges or upgrade our electrical grid).

> I want goods and services delivered to me as efficiently as possible. You know what makes deliveries more efficient? State funded infrastructure. now, how could we finance such a thing...

runjake 14y ago

No national sales tax currently exists, to my knowledge. So this is a new precedent. And to answer your question, we could finance such things by avoiding wars, shutting down needless agencies, and so on. People are already struggling, burdening them with a tax that will generate revenue that is peanuts compared to what we're spending on our wars. Doesn't make sense to me.

Avshalom 14y ago
This is not a national sales tax. This is existing state sales tax being applied to an additional category of sales. In the US much of the infrastructure -like roads and bridges- is ostensibly state funded so decreasing the federal deficit wouldn't necessarily have any effect.
dragonwriter 14y ago
> No national sales tax currently exists, to my knowledge. So this is a new precedent. No, because, despite the media calling the Marketplace Fairness Act an "Internet Sales Tax", the bill is not a national (or any other) tax. It is a bill which conditionally lifts existing barriers to states extending their sales taxes to cover online retailers selling goods to people in the state. If the bill passes, then states with sales taxes would have to choose whether or not to meet the conditions set in order to extend those taxes to internet retailers selling into the state. No tax is created directly by the bill, and any tax enabled by the bill would be a state tax, not a national tax. > People are already struggling, burdening them with a tax that will generate revenue that is peanuts compared to what we're spending on our wars. Most states aren't using any of the taxes they collect to fund wars, and the central purpose of this isn't so much to raise new revenues (though it will enable states to do some of that) as to eliminate the tax incentives that currently exist which favor out-of-state internet-based retailers over in-state retailers (internet-based or brick-and-mortar) due to the inability of states to levy the same taxes on the former as the latter.

the_watcher 14y ago

Actually, it's infrastructure that makes deliveries efficient. State funding is only one avenue for creating it. Many would argue state funding is inefficient.

adventured 14y ago

State funded infrastructure? If only they'd actually spend tax dollars on that instead of lying to get the taxes and then spending the money elsewhere. They're collecting record taxes at the state level, and our infrastructure is in the worst shape it has been in since pre-interstate highway system days, so now what? Raise taxes some more, so they can make more empty promises and redirect funds to pet projects instead of infrastructure? How in the world does this band of criminals deserve any trust such that they should get more money to spend, before they prove they can actually work with the $6.x trillion they already get to spend (nearly the size of China's entire economy, and we can't even fix bridges or upgrade our electrical grid).