Skip to main content

View Diary: Senate moves forward to close online sales tax loophole over Grover Norquist's objections (230 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Absolutely. As I said, I'm (0+ / 0-)

    not opposed to the law, since it merely tries to enhance enforcement of an existing law. I'm just pointing out the unlikelihood of it helping local biz. After the decades-long twin onlaughts of Wal-Mart and Amazon, how many small retail businesses are still around in the vast majority of the country? And favoring Wal-Mart over Amazon is hardly what one could call a good thing, imho.
    Meh. Again, it's simply another way of taking my money away. We'll see if the states do anything positive with their new revenue stream. I doubt any of the red states will, because that's how they roll in the first place.

    "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

    by bryduck on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 12:59:40 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Meager as it might be to buy something (0+ / 0-)

      from Wal-Mart (which I don't do on principle anyway), it at least means a pittance is being paid to someone local.  You can't even say that about Amazon, not in most areas of the country at least.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 01:01:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but with Amazon I had that 10% more (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lgmcp

        to spend elsewhere, which will now go to my state. Will that redound to my benefit? It might (I'm in California, after all), but certainly not directly, and maybe not at all.

        "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

        by bryduck on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 01:06:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe, maybe not. (0+ / 0-)

          As long as it doesn't go to the Federal War Machinery, I can deal.  As for the particulars, well, electorates make their decisions, and the possibility of effecting positive change at the state level isn't as meager as it is on the federal level.

          Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

          by corvo on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 01:09:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ahh, but that depends on what (0+ / 0-)

            you are trying to do and what state you're in. (Think of how ending slavery, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act were effected, for example . . .)
            I'm ok with California getting more money--I just wish it were done more progressively--but do I want Idaho or Utah to get more money? What blood red legislation and/or enforcement will they be paying for with this potential windfall? Do we want Joe Arpaio (I know, not a state-paid employee, but state money will flow downward to all kinds of people and agencies) to have more money?

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 01:25:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site