• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California tells online retailers to start collecting sales taxes from customers

Of course it's not. However the online business is being put at a severe disadvantage by having to charge sales tax AND shipping too.

But they have the advantage of mass purchasing. It is the little guy who is at a severe disadvantage if sales taxes aren't paid.
 
Online retailers have been collecting sales taxes for some time now. This is nothing new.

Why should brick and mortar stores have to collect sales taxes, and online retailers not? That doesn't seem fair to me.

Because there's no ****ing brick and mortor.
 
But they have the advantage of mass purchasing. It is the little guy who is at a severe disadvantage if sales taxes aren't paid.

So my local Best Buy doesn't purchase in mass?
 
Online retailers have been collecting sales taxes for some time now. This is nothing new.

Why should brick and mortar stores have to collect sales taxes, and online retailers not? That doesn't seem fair to me.

The Brick and Morter don't pay or have to charge shipping costs for individuakl items. That doesn't seem fair to me.
 
The Brick and Morter don't pay or have to charge shipping costs for individuakl items. That doesn't seem fair to me.

They do have to pay to have it delivered to their stores... they provide it themselves often enough, but it still has to be paid for... if it isn't fair, that is the fault of their business model...
 
The Brick and Morter don't pay or have to charge shipping costs for individuakl items. That doesn't seem fair to me.

Shipping costs are a cost of doing business, every business with a physical good to transports pays shipping costs, some can do it more efficiently through shipping in large quantities
 
The Brick and Morter don't pay or have to charge shipping costs for individuakl items. That doesn't seem fair to me.

Why not? It costs as much to get in the car and drive to the store and back as it does to have an item shipped.
 
Because there's no ****ing brick and mortor.



Hmm... large response, still makes no sense. Is the tax on bricks and mortar, or mortor, if you prefer? Is the charge per brick? If the store is made of wood, is there a wood tax?
 
Online retailers have been collecting sales taxes for some time now. This is nothing new.

Why should brick and mortar stores have to collect sales taxes, and online retailers not? That doesn't seem fair to me.

Mortars are illegal, anyway.
 
Shipping costs are a cost of doing business, every business with a physical good to transports pays shipping costs, some can do it more efficiently through shipping in large quantities

That post has, "let's hammer the crap out of the small business operator", written all over it.
 
Doesn't that infringe my right to bear arms?

No! Actually, it doesn't, because a mortar isn't a shoulder fired weapon.

Anyone with just a little common sense knows that the 2nd Amendment applies to rifles, shotguns and pistols. However, artillery that is loaded from the muzzle and/or doesn't fire metal cased ammunition and doesn't have a recoil system is legal in the United States.
 
No! Actually, it doesn't, because a mortar isn't a shoulder fired weapon.

Anyone with just a little common sense knows that the 2nd Amendment applies to rifles, shotguns and pistols. However, artillery that is loaded from the muzzle and/or doesn't fire metal cased ammunition and doesn't have a recoil system is legal in the United States.

The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about rifles, shotguns, pistols, or shoulder fired weapons. It says "arms."
 
The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about rifles, shotguns, pistols, or shoulder fired weapons. It says "arms."

Well, ya see, that's where the common sense part comes into play: "arms" refers to the weapons as they were considered in the late 1700's i.e. man portable firearms.

It would obviously be a bad idea for private citizens to own missiles with explosive warheads, exploding artillery rounds, cannon that can shoot explosive shells 20 miles at a high rate of fire, etc.

Now, if you would like to have a cannon that can shoot solid shot out to a mile, then just google it and I'm sure you can find someone to sell you one. ;)
 
Well, ya see, that's where the common sense part comes into play: "arms" refers to the weapons as they were considered in the late 1700's i.e. man portable firearms.

It would obviously be a bad idea for private citizens to own missiles with explosive warheads, exploding artillery rounds, cannon that can shoot explosive shells 20 miles at a high rate of fire, etc.

Now, if you would like to have a cannon that can shoot solid shot out to a mile, then just google it and I'm sure you can find someone to sell you one. ;)

Heck, I want a tank with a 50 mm. machine gun and a cannon. The Second Amendment gives me the right to have one, doesn't it? it doesn't say anything about arms as they existed in the 18th. century. Assault rifles didn't exist back then, either. In fact, the repeating rifle was invented long after the Second amendment was written.
 
They do have to pay to have it delivered to their stores... they provide it themselves often enough, but it still has to be paid for... if it isn't fair, that is the fault of their business model...

When they buy 10,000 DVD players do they ship them individually or are they delivered in bulk lowering the shipping cost to very little per unit as opposed to shipping all 10,000 one at a time?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom