Like Biff to try and tax his enemies.
- Thread starter anon_xl72qcu5isp39
- Start date
What's interesting is reading the stories that tweet created. Lots of "Amazon collects sales taxes blah blah blah." A simple look into the history of tax battles states have had with Amazon tells a completely different story, including claiming that they don't have to collect sales tax because their physical distribution centers are a separate entity and terminating contracts with affiliates in states where the law required the collection of sales tax by any company with a physical presence.
Maybe that's what he was referring to. Despite the roses painted by the sycophants in the media, Amazon has been a slimy pile of shit because not collecting sales tax gave them a big competitive edge over local businesses.
What the media says...
What the reality for states has been...
Maybe that's what he was referring to. Despite the roses painted by the sycophants in the media, Amazon has been a slimy pile of shit because not collecting sales tax gave them a big competitive edge over local businesses.
What the media says...
What the reality for states has been...
What's the issue here? I thought based on the actions of the past administration that it was acceptable to have the IRS target those whose political affiliations do not align with the current leadership of the executive branch. Or should we be routing this taxation issue only through the Cincinnati branch?
I bought some new shoes off Amazon last week. I paid sales tax on it. So are those narratives saying they collect taxes in 45/50 states false and the media is pushing a false narrative? How is it any different than Trump taking advantage of the cheaper labor in China to produce clothes for his product lines?
I don't think they're doing anything that any other internet seller hasn't been doing are they? I don't pay sales tax for ebay purchases from professional sellers. I've saved sales tax on vacay by having stuff shipped home.
I'm not conservative, right isn't simply whatever's best for me so i need some clarity. So it's okay for the gov't to selectively tax its political opponents?
I thought the IRS targeting the opposition was a faux scandal? Isn't that what you stated here:
https://oklahomastate.forums.rivals...ral-conservative-integrity.13137/#post-161895
So, now you care because its the blue team that might be targeted. Seems to me that YOU are the one who thinks its ok for the gov't to use the IRS as a political weapon, as long as its your team that does it.
My original post was clearly written tongue-in-cheek, but good to see you swallowed it whole.
As for this topic, I find it strange the Dems aren't behind Trump here. He is advocating that one of the richest men and most affluent organizations in the world isn't paying its share of taxes. But because it was Trump, suddenly the Dems disagree and are defending Amazon and the billions it makes in profit. I thought Dems were against the wealthy elite and the consolidation of wealth? Or is that only when that wealth isn't used to promote the democratic agenda? Must be why Bezos and Buffett are never considered part of the evil plutocracy (you know the 1%ers), even as 2 of the top 5 (3?) richest people in the world, yet the Koch brothers (top 100, maybe?) are greedy capitalists.
Damnation that's an owning.
Oh, I'm assuming it is a fake scandal. I still haven't ever sat down and looked it up because the right was so full of shit with all their alarmism and drama it's always a waste of time.
I have yet to stick up for Bezos or anyone else in this thread.
WTF do Kochs or Buffet have to do with this? Who says I like Bezos or Buffet? Did Hannity tell you that, dutiful little follower?
Nothing like building a straw man and SETTING THAT F&$^ER ON FIRE.
Edit: How about you Brad? You good with Biff doing that?
I don't know. Places like Best Buy have always collected sales tax because of physical presence. Amazon still isn't collecting sales tax from their professional sellers just like eBay doesn't. The difference I see is that Amazon has gone to great efforts in the recent past to avoid the "physical presence" through a variety of mechanisms in order to maintain a competitive advantage over local and other online retailers. Was it legal? Yep. Was throwing every trick in the book into play to avoid collecting sales tax for competitive advantage thus diminishing a State's source of revenue morally right? That's for an individual to decide. As a similar notion, were Trump's bankruptcies legal? Yep. Were they morally right? I think you've already stated your opinion on that subject.
How much sales tax revenue do you think Oklahoma has lost over the years due to Amazon? How would that money have affected state and local budgets, especially considering the forking retards that run this state? I would wager it's more than chump change.
Probably a lot. How many small towns were decimated from Wal Mart? Shit changes. I don't like it either, but things change. But the federal government doesn't impose a sales tax. Biff's talking about.... what?
I'm sure that our legislature will act with the wisdom and courage that one can expect from conservative government.
Alternatively.....it used to be a scandal for some....but suddenly isn't something to worry about.
Mary Fallin announced that Amazon reached an agreement with Oklahoma to collect and remit sales taxes (including municipally set ones) this March, fwiw.
When the IRS actually gets involved in any way, let me know and I'll agree its something to worry about. So far, its nothing more than a tweet stating that an Internet giant that is loved by millions (right and left) doesn't pay its fair share of taxes (a statement the left I would expect would rally around in today's anti-1%er era), yet instead, the left has come running to Amazon's defense. Just seems counter to the Rs love the rich businesses and the D's love the poor workers stereotype that's the financial basis for the entire progressive (read Bernie Sanders) wing of the Dem party.
Basically seems strange the leftists and Dem media would rather be against Trump than to actually listen to the message and support it where it aligns nearly 100% with their platform.
You have no more conception of what "the left" thinks or wants than a fart does. Who believes this stuff? All you have stated about "the left" is prepackaged hive think about prepackaged hive think.
Given that you started this thread that Biff was using the IRS to attack his enemies and that the first line is: "In a tweet directed at Jeff Bezos", that to me is sticking up for Bezos. You clearly correlated Bezos to be the enemy of Trump and that Trump was acting improper.
"I Still haven't sat down and looked it up because the right was so full of ..." Funny, now you know how most of us feel with this Russia crap, or is it Ivanka's dress today? Or maybe its covfefe. You can't go one day without the left trying to create some kind of Trump controversy.
And finally, you talk about being driven by talking points..."Did Hannity tell you that"? Yet here you are arguing against Trump on a topic that actually should have the pro-business, anti-tax Republicans against him and the progressive Dems squarely behind him. Yet, you dutifully follow your marching orders and raise the Trump alarm just like the media and DNC want you to.
I know its hard, but think a minute for yourself. If you really are a progressive democrat who believes the 1%ers make too much and the 99%ers get sh!t upon, do you not agree that Amazon which netted $2Billion in profit last year doesn't pay enough taxes? Yet you are here supporting Amazon against Trump.
Go ahead, email the DNC and get your rebuttal points. I'll be waiting.
Amazon agreed to comply with an Oklahoma law in place saying all internet sales to Oklahomans are subject to Oklahoma sales taxes.
I believe the law also provides that Oklahoma taxpayers have to report total of all online purchases on their tax returns and are required to pay the tax if the vendor doesn't. For the record, I have never bought anything online...as far as the Oklahoma Tax Commission is aware.
Sweet Jesus. You literally cannot distinguish between concerns about calling to tax an enemy versus concerns about who is making how much. Again, you go off on a tangent about a narrative that you heard on Fox. I don't know anybody tbat has a problem with people making too much money. I hope people do make lots of money. Who told you that I think people make too much money?
How much sales tax revenue has Wal-Mart not collected in these small towns? Wal-Mart didn't decimate towns, they decimated small business. And if I ordered online from Wal-Mart I paid sales tax. Quite a bit different than purposeful schemes to keep from collecting sales taxes in order to maintain a competitive edge. So again, despite your inclusion of asparagus in a conversation about handguns, how much money do you suspect has been lost from local and state budgets because of Amazon not collecting sales tax?
I'm clear. States have fought Amazon for quite some time. Amazon has been quite the adversary on the collection of sales tax. It was legal, not arguing against that.
Didn't you say you wanted Bernie? Wasn't the wealth-gap and the 1%ers the primary tenant of his message? That and that we need to increase taxes on those who make excessive amounts?
Regardless, you have clearly proven you don't care to think. Whether you are a progressive Dem or not, you cannot argue that the progressive Dem believes that the 1%ers make too much and do not pay enough taxes. Heck, they had a year long protest (Occupy Wall-Street ring a bell?) on just this topic. They believe that we should tax the wealthy more than we currently do so we can provide immigration settlement, free healthcare, free education through college, and some even believe in universal income.
Feel free to state right here, that you do not believe in this progressive direction of increased government services paid for through increased taxation on the wealthy. State it and I will immediately apologize for lumping you in with the progressive democrats.
I'm not sure where this narrative is on Fox. Im at my desk at work so not watching TV. Like I said, on face value, I would have expected the Dems to have agreed with Trump's statement and the pro-business Repubs (aka Fox) to have been against him for it. Yet somehow its not. 538 had an article about Amazon paying its taxes. You were here blasting the president for the suggestion. Just strikes me as bizarro world where we don't even listen to the message of the politician, but rather if the other team says it, it must be bad.
My post wasn't suggesting one way or the other on whether you wee clear.
I did say, fwiw.
After all, they DID JUST start paying them.
I voted for him in the primary over Hillary. I would have voted for him if he ran independent.
Yes, but that's not what you're saying that I believe. Youre saying I think some people make too much money. Those are two different statements with two different meanings. I didn't say "excessive" and don't know that Bernie did. If he did I'd have to see it in context due to so many falsehoods from conservatives. If he wanted to cap income he's wrong. I've NEVER heard someone call for that, in person or on any mainstream media outlet or blog. Never. I've heard the accusation like a stupid parrot repeating the mantra, but I've never heard it.
Yes I can. Most dems i know want to make money. Some of them are good at it. I don't know what the 1% income cutoff is, but I've never met someone that said someone else makes too much money. Making too much money and not paying enough taxes are two different things. That's a stupid, false narrative that you heard from a progagandist but weren't independent minded enough to question. If you can't think on your own then you need to listen to me, not FOX. I'll tell you the truth.
No, "they" didn't. Some kids on the east coast did. They were extremists and didn't represent mainstream citizens. I don't know anyone that was there. Yet here you are, projecting that tiny, tiny, tiny, marginalized voice on millions of people. You've been duped by media. Has there been some "occupy" movement getting people democrat nominations?
That's not what you said either. What government services? That's another stupid narrative that doesn't even make sense on the surface. Because I want a pothole on Main Street fixed I also have to be for a new public housing complex in San Diego? Government service -- for or against, huh? Increased taxes on the wealthy? I'm not sure what "wealthy" is, but Trump flies around in a jumbo jet and doesn't pay income tax. I think he should pay income taxes, which is more than he does now, so yeah. Many of the country's most wealthy people (that are self made) are for it so, yeah he should pay income taxes like the rest of us.
No, dems are offended that he selectively calls out certain people to be taxed. That's not equal application of the laws. He's trying to threaten an opponent with taxation, like a third world thug. That accusation isn't made from the lying republicans spinning something for gullibles to believe, it's made from this:
You're the one that's imputing false opinions to the other "team" and you'l note I haven't accused someone of agreeing with him. YOu're making the teams here. WTH does he mean "internet taxes?" He doesn't even know. Someone told him they didn't pay taxes for internet sales and they made him mad so he wants them to pay "internet taxes" to....probably him. Someone pointed out last week he called for a law that was already a law.
To be fair chastising and using the IRS to target are two different things entirely.
One man's "chastising" is another man's "threat to use tax laws or IRS to target".
Yes I said "make too much". How you read that as the primary message means you obviously lack an ability to read for comprehension. The point of my message is the progessive mantra of "pay their fair share". So here the president calls out an org that made $2B last year in profit, is run by one of the wealthiest people in the world, and has knowingly used every available tax loophole to minimize their tax bill. How does that not exactly align to the Bernie Sanders "pay your fair share" message?
I clearly label the government services in my own statement. Sorry I didn't relist them for your review in my later paragraph. But I'll highlight them so you can come back and tell me you aren't for these things: "immigration settlement, free healthcare, free education through college, and some even believe in universal income. " As for wealthy, I guess I have to be specific, but its fine when Dems just call them "the Rich" or the "1%" (both are direct references from Bernie's campaign pages".
I get it. He's being specific in his targeting. I bet you had your pitchforks out when Obama called for more taxes on Exxon. (I bet if I look harder, other prior presidents have said similar things as well.) For the record though, I couldn't find any articles (from red or blue) that said that Obama's statement equated to weaponizing the IRS. Lots of articles confirming or disputing whether Exxon pays its fair share (as expected). But when Trump says it, its "Biff to tax his enemies".
Sorry, this is a ramble that's hard to follow. I personally find it funny that you're here arguing against me as if I've taken either side in his statement. I don't care about his statement, nor do I try to parse his words. I was just highlighting that under any normal circumstance, his words would sound very "democrat" in highlighting a corporation not paying its fair share in taxes. But because its Trump, you (like clockwork) are here arguing against him. And you say that I'm the guy who parrots opinions.
And that mans perceived "threat" is based on alarmism while the others was a reality for many.
Could be a threat to work through legislative channels. But I don't consider that a threat.
