GOP Politicians Hate Small Business

There may not be a Santa Claus, but there are "tax loopholes". They are usually created with bribe money to politicians. Which is entirely "legal" - of course.

"The world's largest internet retailer collects sales taxes from only five American states, exploiting a 1992 court ruling that US businesses without a physical presence – such as a shop or warehouse – in a state cannot be required to collect its sales tax. Amazon has a map of the US with each state coloured red, yellow or green. Executives travelling to red states need company permission before entering, in case their actions trigger laws that force Amazon to collect taxes there."
THE GUARDIAN, How Amazon finds tax loopholes, By, Juliette Garside, Apr 2012.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/04/amazon-tax-loopholes-us

 

Amazon, and the other Big Bad Businesses that bribe politicians for competitive advantages are IMO corrupt criminal enterprises, and everyone involved in the process should be the subject of thorough RICO investigations..

The collection of bribe money, government's protection racket, has become the primary focus of our bipartisan ruling political class.

"Politicians spend an extraordinary amount of time raising money ... it takes up between 30 to 70% of their day." EXTORTION, "How Politicians Extract Your money, Buy Votes, And Line Their Own Pockets, Peter Schweizer, HMO, NY, NY, 2013, p. 58.

 

Stop moving the goalposts. I did not claim there are no tax loopholes. I claimed — correctly — that the sales tax question is not one of them.

For the fifth time, noncollection of interstate sales tax sans commercial nexus is not a loophole. It is a jurisdictional matter. And it did not apply solely to Amazon — it applied to EVERY RESELLER shipping across state lines. The Wayfair decision granted nationwide taxing jurisdiction, so now states can collect sales tax from resellers located outside of their jurisdictions. By singling out Amazon, you (and the hit piece you cited) are trying to imply that they got some kind of special treatment wrt the tax code. This is a false claim.

 

There are all kinds of examples anti competitive practices - Collusion - Price Fixing - and so on.. Understanding this however, requires that the person be able to understand some basic principles of a monopoly - after being explained the 3rd time

On the tax loopholes side - of course there are loopholes that allow a company to avoid sales tax

 

There was never a loophole, there was only a juridictional boundary on a state's ability to lawfully demand sales tax from an entity with no commercial nexus to its taxing authority.

Note, South Dakota V Wayfair has effectively eliminated that boundary. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf

 

Still waiting for that list of monopolies.

 

You never asked for a list - and can't seem to understand basic features of a monopoly - so a list will probably not help you.

Standard Oil was a monopoly
Power companies in many locations are monopolies
Natural Gas companies

 

Actually - you are correct - the loophole I was thinking of does not work on sales tax.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-small-business.582957/page-5#post-1072361261

Your continued deployment of the ad hominem fallacy is not only petty and childish, but actually betrays the pallor of your facile argument. You should stop.

LOL. Eleven decades ago. Are you forgetting AT&T? I was hoping for a more recent example. How about something from this century?

Fell right into my trap...

Why are they monopolies? They are called natural monopolies and exist because the cost of infrastructure is so great and the rights of way need to be secured by eminent domain so THE STATE USING ITS MONOPOLY ON FORCE — THAT YOU DENIED IS THE ONLY TRUE MONOPOLY — eliminates all competition. It’s a quid pro quo. The natural monopolies only exist because of the state’s only true monopoly. And that is the monopoly on force.

 

Yes.

 

There is no trap going on here - other than the fact that your brain is trapped - unable to understand the simple concept given to you.

Unable is perhaps the wrong word - more like "Unwilling" - some kind of self induced wall - by pretending that this is a black vs white Paradigm .. where it is a "Pure Monopoly" or "Nothing" - that if a pure Monopoly does not exist - then a free market exists - such that prices are dictated only by supply and demand.

This is me you are talking to - one who when makes a mistake - admits it and learns from it.

You got stalled in the above false paradigm - and have not progressed further.

 

Fallacy, ad hominem. I am not the topic...

If I recall correctly -- and I do -- it was not me who introduced the concept of monopoly to this discussion.

Fallacy, ad hominem. You are also not the topic.

Fallacy, ad hominem. I am not the topic. Am I detecting a pattern here?

By the way, still waiting for that list.

 

You do not understand what Ad hom Fallacy is .. and yes .. your lack of understanding is the topic.

 

Oh? By all means feel free to correct my error.

Please check the thread title. You'll note it is not "Bow To The Robots' lack of understanding."

 

Someone pointing out your lack of understanding is not Ad Hom Fallacy.
Pointing out that you are avoiding the Topic - is not Ad Hom Fallacy.

What you avoided is the fact that you have created a black vs white Paradigm - Where if a "Pure Monopoly" does not exist , then a free market exists - such that prices are dictated only by supply and demand.

Your claim is demonstrably false - which is why you are engaging in avoidance tactics.

 

Of course it is. I am not the topic of this thread. My "understanding" is not the topic of this thread. This is Debate 101.

Instead of offering a factual rebuttal, you addressed your opponent's character, qualifications, motives, etc.. This is an informal logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem.

Literally translated as "argument to the man." Your opinions regarding my character, intelligence, qualifications, motives, "understanding," etc., do not constitute factual evidence in support of your claim and are -- in fact -- evidence that you cannot factually support your claim.

You'll also note I invited you to correct my "error." You have not done so, but have merely made a claim. You need to support your position with facts and evidence. You failed to do so.

Please cite your evidence that I am "avoiding the topic." You need to be specific.

Red herring: I did not make that argument. If you believe I did, please cite the post in which you allege I proffered this fallacy you are attempting to attribute to me.

What is demonstrably false is your allegation that I made such a claim.

Still waiting for that list of monopolies...

 

That you do not realize what you are claiming -

What you avoided is the fact that you have created a black vs white Paradigm - Where if a "Pure Monopoly" does not exist , then a free market exists - such that prices are dictated only by supply and demand.

and if you agree with the above claim - then your initial argument is lost - which was that consumer is the only thing that determines prices.

 

That is a sentence fragment. What are you trying to say here?

I did no such thing. This is your second false allegation of this fallacy. You neglected to cite the post in which you claim I proffered this argument. I'll wait...

Cite the post.

 

Can you not remember your own posts mate - I stated that you were not taking the competitive advantage of Monopolies/Oligopolies into consideration

No - consumers are not the ultimate arbiter in the case of anti competitive practices such as "Price Fixing"

Your claim is abject nonsense - and you were vigorously trying to defend this nonsense claim - but now you are in denial of what your own claim was.

 

Cite the post where I argued "pure monopoly v free market" as you fallaciously claimed.

Please cite one modern example of price fixing in the free market (government health care monopoly and government regulated utility monopoly doesn't count -- you'll note a pattern there).

Now you are just falsely and intentionally misrepresenting my position.

 

You are arguing pure monopoly v free market in this post - claiming that in the absence of monopoly there is no price fixing.

So it is not me misrepresenting your position - It is you who does not understand implication of your words.

So clarify your position - can there be price fixing in the absence of monopoly or not.

Make up your mind ?

 

That is false. And you have yet to cite this alleged "argument."

For the fourth ****ing time, cite the post where I argued "pure monopoly" as you fallaciously allege.

Fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. For the fourteenth ****ing time.

I have stated my position clearly and concisely. Your red herring does not oblige me to repeat myself. I have asked you multiple times to cite the post in which you allege I made an argument I never made. I have yet to see it...

Fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. I am not the topic of this thread.

 

In fact, you did say "There are no "loopholes."" at 4:43 pm Sat.?

And tax loopholes are always the result of special interest lobbying, aka bribery.

"Amazon's UK managing director, Christopher North, said in a recent radio interview that while the company benefits from low corporation tax by being based in Luxembourg, it pays Britain's 20% value added tax rate.

"The products we sell and ship to customers we pay the UK VAT rate," said North.

But he conceded that this only applies to physical products – and books are zero-rated. Tax on ebooks is at the rate set by Luxembourg, which has defied European guidance. Instead of charging tax at the national VAT rate, it takes only 3%, on the grounds that, like printed books, electronic publications are of cultural significance.

This matters because sales of ebooks are soaring. Worldwide, Amazon now sells 115 ebooks for every 100 paperbacks. About 1.3m ereaders were bought in the UK this Christmas, according to pollster YouGov, and 95% of them were Kindles made by Amazon."
THE GUARDIAN, How Amazon finds tax loopholes, By, Juliette Garside, Apr 2012.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/04/amazon-tax-loopholes-us

 

Referring specifically to sales tax -- which is clear given the context of the conversation.

Red herring. We are discussing sales tax in the United States.

Of course governments grant special tax deals to businesses all the time -- and those are called loopholes. But the sales tax jurisdictional issue in the United States -- which was your original fallacious argument claiming Amazon had some kind of special treatment w/r/t sales tax -- was not a loophole. It was a matter of taxing authority limits based on jurisdiction. South Dakota v Wayfair had the effect of extending an individual state's taxing authority beyond its state boundary, hence allowing states to demand the collection of sales tax from business entities in other states with which the taxing state has no commercial nexus. Frankly, this was a pretty anti-consumer ruling and a regressive one at that as we all know sales tax disproportionately impacts low wage earners.

 

Rambling gibberish once again - and you don't know what the terms you are using mean. You are so confused by your own words that you can't clarify your position by answering a simple question.

Can there be price fixing in the absence of monopoly or not