<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_30_1515222</id>
	<title>Rhode Island Affiliates Banned From Amazon.com Sales</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246376640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Rand Huck writes <i>"Amazon.com has <a href="http://www.pbn.com/detail/43272.html">now added Rhode Island to its blacklist of affiliates</a> in response to its proposed budget changes to enforce a tax on Internet sales, which includes commissions on their affiliate program by content providers based in Rhode Island. The first state to be blacklisted was <a href="//slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/26/172248&amp;tid=95">North Carolina, for the same reason</a>. If you go to a Rhode Island-based or North Carolina-based website that advertises Amazon.com goods as an affiliate, that website will no longer have the goods available because otherwise Amazon.com would be forced to pay sales tax to the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations or the State of North Carolina. The state's rationale is, if someone clicks to buy a good from Amazon.com via a site based in Rhode Island, it's equivalent to buying a good from a brick and mortar chain store located in Rhode Island."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rand Huck writes " Amazon.com has now added Rhode Island to its blacklist of affiliates in response to its proposed budget changes to enforce a tax on Internet sales , which includes commissions on their affiliate program by content providers based in Rhode Island .
The first state to be blacklisted was North Carolina , for the same reason .
If you go to a Rhode Island-based or North Carolina-based website that advertises Amazon.com goods as an affiliate , that website will no longer have the goods available because otherwise Amazon.com would be forced to pay sales tax to the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations or the State of North Carolina .
The state 's rationale is , if someone clicks to buy a good from Amazon.com via a site based in Rhode Island , it 's equivalent to buying a good from a brick and mortar chain store located in Rhode Island .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rand Huck writes "Amazon.com has now added Rhode Island to its blacklist of affiliates in response to its proposed budget changes to enforce a tax on Internet sales, which includes commissions on their affiliate program by content providers based in Rhode Island.
The first state to be blacklisted was North Carolina, for the same reason.
If you go to a Rhode Island-based or North Carolina-based website that advertises Amazon.com goods as an affiliate, that website will no longer have the goods available because otherwise Amazon.com would be forced to pay sales tax to the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations or the State of North Carolina.
The state's rationale is, if someone clicks to buy a good from Amazon.com via a site based in Rhode Island, it's equivalent to buying a good from a brick and mortar chain store located in Rhode Island.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529249</id>
	<title>I fear that pretty soon...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246380300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the only Amazon.com affiliates left will be in The Amazon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the only Amazon.com affiliates left will be in The Amazon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the only Amazon.com affiliates left will be in The Amazon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28533993</id>
	<title>Who are these afilliates?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246353120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have noticed that Amazon TV prices match Best Buy.  Who are these affiliates?  When I order from Amazon is Best Buy the actual shipper affiliate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have noticed that Amazon TV prices match Best Buy .
Who are these affiliates ?
When I order from Amazon is Best Buy the actual shipper affiliate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have noticed that Amazon TV prices match Best Buy.
Who are these affiliates?
When I order from Amazon is Best Buy the actual shipper affiliate?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530503</id>
	<title>Hurray for Amazon!!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246384020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hurray for Amazon!!!!!</p><p>If a state or federal government charges too high a tax rate, stop doing business in that state!!!!</p><p>In the U.S. our tax rates, personal and business, are second only to the U.K.!!!</p><p>Lowwer taxes!</p><p>Less government intervention in our business and lives!</p><p>Impeach obama!  Impeach all democrats!</p><p>Deny sotomayer!</p><p>Remove the czars!</p><p>Remove hillary clinton!</p><p>Deport the illegal aliens!</p><p>No government run health plan!</p><p>No government funded health plan!</p><p>Repeal all bills passed into law since the innaguration!</p><p>It is criminal that congress and the whitehouse DO NOT READ the bills they pass into law!  They are acting irresponsibly!</p><p>There is no global warming!  Science shows us man-made global warming is a false idea!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hurray for Amazon ! ! ! !
! If a state or federal government charges too high a tax rate , stop doing business in that state ! ! !
! In the U.S. our tax rates , personal and business , are second only to the U.K. ! !
! Lowwer taxes ! Less government intervention in our business and lives ! Impeach obama !
Impeach all democrats ! Deny sotomayer ! Remove the czars ! Remove hillary clinton ! Deport the illegal aliens ! No government run health plan ! No government funded health plan ! Repeal all bills passed into law since the innaguration ! It is criminal that congress and the whitehouse DO NOT READ the bills they pass into law !
They are acting irresponsibly ! There is no global warming !
Science shows us man-made global warming is a false idea !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hurray for Amazon!!!!
!If a state or federal government charges too high a tax rate, stop doing business in that state!!!
!In the U.S. our tax rates, personal and business, are second only to the U.K.!!
!Lowwer taxes!Less government intervention in our business and lives!Impeach obama!
Impeach all democrats!Deny sotomayer!Remove the czars!Remove hillary clinton!Deport the illegal aliens!No government run health plan!No government funded health plan!Repeal all bills passed into law since the innaguration!It is criminal that congress and the whitehouse DO NOT READ the bills they pass into law!
They are acting irresponsibly!There is no global warming!
Science shows us man-made global warming is a false idea!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529979</id>
	<title>this sounds self defeating</title>
	<author>Sir\_Real</author>
	<datestamp>1246382580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the store doesn't get a sale, doesn't pay the stakeholder, who was presumably going to spend money in the state on taxable goods and services.  The state still loses.  The original sale doesn't generate revenue and the seller won't be purchasing anything that generates tax revenue with the proceeds of the sale that didn't happen.  Sorry states, there will always be at least one state that will take advantage of this and host amazon friendly affiliate websites.  This is kinda like how you can incorporate an LLC in any state you have an "agent" in (100 bucks a year gets you agent representation in any state) but no one in their right minds incorporates an LLC outside of Nevada or Delaware because of the incredibly low taxes and business friendly body of case law they've produced.  You still have to pay personal income tax in the state you perform work but you get a credit for taxes you pay to other states for your state of residence taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the store does n't get a sale , does n't pay the stakeholder , who was presumably going to spend money in the state on taxable goods and services .
The state still loses .
The original sale does n't generate revenue and the seller wo n't be purchasing anything that generates tax revenue with the proceeds of the sale that did n't happen .
Sorry states , there will always be at least one state that will take advantage of this and host amazon friendly affiliate websites .
This is kinda like how you can incorporate an LLC in any state you have an " agent " in ( 100 bucks a year gets you agent representation in any state ) but no one in their right minds incorporates an LLC outside of Nevada or Delaware because of the incredibly low taxes and business friendly body of case law they 've produced .
You still have to pay personal income tax in the state you perform work but you get a credit for taxes you pay to other states for your state of residence taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the store doesn't get a sale, doesn't pay the stakeholder, who was presumably going to spend money in the state on taxable goods and services.
The state still loses.
The original sale doesn't generate revenue and the seller won't be purchasing anything that generates tax revenue with the proceeds of the sale that didn't happen.
Sorry states, there will always be at least one state that will take advantage of this and host amazon friendly affiliate websites.
This is kinda like how you can incorporate an LLC in any state you have an "agent" in (100 bucks a year gets you agent representation in any state) but no one in their right minds incorporates an LLC outside of Nevada or Delaware because of the incredibly low taxes and business friendly body of case law they've produced.
You still have to pay personal income tax in the state you perform work but you get a credit for taxes you pay to other states for your state of residence taxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529955</id>
	<title>Amazon is basically screaming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246382520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon is basically screaming: "Taxation Without Representation" and taking a stand against what it believes is unconstitutional taxation. (ie being taxed by a foreign (different state) government) This is exactly what happen in the mid-late 1700s and the reason the US is it's own country rather than part of the United Kingdom.</p><p>I completely agree with Amazon.  I happen to have an Amazon shop (I'm not located in either of those states) I know it screws the webstore owner, but Amazon is doing the right thing and THEY need to stand up to their own state's goverment and let them know that they are hurting their own people by being greeding and trying to tax people that don't even live in their state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon is basically screaming : " Taxation Without Representation " and taking a stand against what it believes is unconstitutional taxation .
( ie being taxed by a foreign ( different state ) government ) This is exactly what happen in the mid-late 1700s and the reason the US is it 's own country rather than part of the United Kingdom.I completely agree with Amazon .
I happen to have an Amazon shop ( I 'm not located in either of those states ) I know it screws the webstore owner , but Amazon is doing the right thing and THEY need to stand up to their own state 's goverment and let them know that they are hurting their own people by being greeding and trying to tax people that do n't even live in their state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon is basically screaming: "Taxation Without Representation" and taking a stand against what it believes is unconstitutional taxation.
(ie being taxed by a foreign (different state) government) This is exactly what happen in the mid-late 1700s and the reason the US is it's own country rather than part of the United Kingdom.I completely agree with Amazon.
I happen to have an Amazon shop (I'm not located in either of those states) I know it screws the webstore owner, but Amazon is doing the right thing and THEY need to stand up to their own state's goverment and let them know that they are hurting their own people by being greeding and trying to tax people that don't even live in their state.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28533667</id>
	<title>Really?  In THIS economic climate?</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1246394940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Governments could generate $3 billion in new revenues if Web retailers had to collect taxes on all sales to consumers, according to Forrester Research  ( FORR -  news  -  people ).</p></div><p>A tax grab - now?  People are really struggling to avoid defaulting on their credit cards, so lets get $3 billion more in taxes out of them.  Because it... makes... so much... sense......</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Governments could generate $ 3 billion in new revenues if Web retailers had to collect taxes on all sales to consumers , according to Forrester Research ( FORR - news - people ) .A tax grab - now ?
People are really struggling to avoid defaulting on their credit cards , so lets get $ 3 billion more in taxes out of them .
Because it... makes... so much... sense..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Governments could generate $3 billion in new revenues if Web retailers had to collect taxes on all sales to consumers, according to Forrester Research  ( FORR -  news  -  people ).A tax grab - now?
People are really struggling to avoid defaulting on their credit cards, so lets get $3 billion more in taxes out of them.
Because it... makes... so much... sense......
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530555</id>
	<title>Re:Catalogs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246384140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make an interesting point.  A single unified tax would be workable.</p><p>As I recall, there was a consortium of states that tried to "unify" their sales taxes in the hope of collecting on mail order sales.  But the process consisted of little more than documenting their various rates and myriad of exceptions, imposing a burden for online retailers to automate (and maintain!) a process that was failing badly on paper.  It got ugly when county and local governments chimed in, each with their own rate and rules, looking for a piece of the action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make an interesting point .
A single unified tax would be workable.As I recall , there was a consortium of states that tried to " unify " their sales taxes in the hope of collecting on mail order sales .
But the process consisted of little more than documenting their various rates and myriad of exceptions , imposing a burden for online retailers to automate ( and maintain !
) a process that was failing badly on paper .
It got ugly when county and local governments chimed in , each with their own rate and rules , looking for a piece of the action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make an interesting point.
A single unified tax would be workable.As I recall, there was a consortium of states that tried to "unify" their sales taxes in the hope of collecting on mail order sales.
But the process consisted of little more than documenting their various rates and myriad of exceptions, imposing a burden for online retailers to automate (and maintain!
) a process that was failing badly on paper.
It got ugly when county and local governments chimed in, each with their own rate and rules, looking for a piece of the action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28541927</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon is basically screaming</title>
	<author>RobBebop</author>
	<datestamp>1246461480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is exactly what happen in the mid-late 1700s and the reason the US is it's own country rather than part of the United Kingdom.</p></div><p>Two thoughts come to mind.

</p><p>(a) you're oversimplifying a complex set of circumstances and opportunities which presented America with an opportunity to seek independence in the 1770's - for more information, I'd urge you to read Common Sense by Thomas Payne to clarify you've prospective of the time period preceding the war

</p><p>(b) taxation WITH representation isn't so hot either</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly what happen in the mid-late 1700s and the reason the US is it 's own country rather than part of the United Kingdom.Two thoughts come to mind .
( a ) you 're oversimplifying a complex set of circumstances and opportunities which presented America with an opportunity to seek independence in the 1770 's - for more information , I 'd urge you to read Common Sense by Thomas Payne to clarify you 've prospective of the time period preceding the war ( b ) taxation WITH representation is n't so hot either</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly what happen in the mid-late 1700s and the reason the US is it's own country rather than part of the United Kingdom.Two thoughts come to mind.
(a) you're oversimplifying a complex set of circumstances and opportunities which presented America with an opportunity to seek independence in the 1770's - for more information, I'd urge you to read Common Sense by Thomas Payne to clarify you've prospective of the time period preceding the war

(b) taxation WITH representation isn't so hot either
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531229</id>
	<title>Every breath you take...</title>
	<author>mapkinase</author>
	<datestamp>1246385880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every breath you take<br>Every move you make<br>Every click you make<br>Every step you take<br>I'll be taxing you</p><p>Every single day<br>Every word you say<br>Every game you play<br>Every night you stay<br>I'll be taxing you</p><p>Oh, cant you see<br>You belong to me<br>How my poor RIDT aches<br>With every step you take</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every breath you takeEvery move you makeEvery click you makeEvery step you takeI 'll be taxing youEvery single dayEvery word you sayEvery game you playEvery night you stayI 'll be taxing youOh , cant you seeYou belong to meHow my poor RIDT achesWith every step you take</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every breath you takeEvery move you makeEvery click you makeEvery step you takeI'll be taxing youEvery single dayEvery word you sayEvery game you playEvery night you stayI'll be taxing youOh, cant you seeYou belong to meHow my poor RIDT achesWith every step you take</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529977</id>
	<title>Sales tax should be that of business location</title>
	<author>voss</author>
	<datestamp>1246382580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sales tax for interstate domestic commerce should be based on location of business not the location of the consumer, the sale happens where the business is located.</p><p>
&nbsp; Amazon is incorporated in delaware, delaware has no state sales tax, hence the tax you owe is 0\%</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sales tax for interstate domestic commerce should be based on location of business not the location of the consumer , the sale happens where the business is located .
  Amazon is incorporated in delaware , delaware has no state sales tax , hence the tax you owe is 0 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sales tax for interstate domestic commerce should be based on location of business not the location of the consumer, the sale happens where the business is located.
  Amazon is incorporated in delaware, delaware has no state sales tax, hence the tax you owe is 0\%</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28532929</id>
	<title>Re:Catalogs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246391640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not just because I'm greedy either.</p></div><p>Not wanting to pay more taxes is NOT greed. *NEVER* let the ideologues sell you that line of bull. It's perfectly rational (and even moral) to not want to pay ever more money into an increasingly broken system if the politicians refuse to even discuss serious reform, as is the case here in California, for example.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just because I 'm greedy either.Not wanting to pay more taxes is NOT greed .
* NEVER * let the ideologues sell you that line of bull .
It 's perfectly rational ( and even moral ) to not want to pay ever more money into an increasingly broken system if the politicians refuse to even discuss serious reform , as is the case here in California , for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just because I'm greedy either.Not wanting to pay more taxes is NOT greed.
*NEVER* let the ideologues sell you that line of bull.
It's perfectly rational (and even moral) to not want to pay ever more money into an increasingly broken system if the politicians refuse to even discuss serious reform, as is the case here in California, for example.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531265</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon is basically screaming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246385940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the zillionth time, RHODE ISLAND IS TRYING TO COLLECT TAX FROM RHODE ISLANDERS! It has nothing to do with out-of-state anything. RI is trying to force amazon to collect RI sales tax from RI residents (or at least people with RI shipping addresses) by claiming that amazon has affiliates based in RI, and thus has a physical presence just like Walmart or Target.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the zillionth time , RHODE ISLAND IS TRYING TO COLLECT TAX FROM RHODE ISLANDERS !
It has nothing to do with out-of-state anything .
RI is trying to force amazon to collect RI sales tax from RI residents ( or at least people with RI shipping addresses ) by claiming that amazon has affiliates based in RI , and thus has a physical presence just like Walmart or Target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the zillionth time, RHODE ISLAND IS TRYING TO COLLECT TAX FROM RHODE ISLANDERS!
It has nothing to do with out-of-state anything.
RI is trying to force amazon to collect RI sales tax from RI residents (or at least people with RI shipping addresses) by claiming that amazon has affiliates based in RI, and thus has a physical presence just like Walmart or Target.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28535245</id>
	<title>Will they ever learn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246358880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sales tax is an ineffective way to fund your government in this day and age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sales tax is an ineffective way to fund your government in this day and age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sales tax is an ineffective way to fund your government in this day and age.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530669</id>
	<title>More than just taxing for the sake of taxing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246384440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could be just money-grubbing politicians, but I think there's more to it.</p><p>Time and time again, I see businesses (or industries as a whole) lobby for laws that prevent or inhibit the adoption of internet-based technology because they don't want to take the risks or pay the overhead to keep up with the times.  We've seen it in the entertainment industry with digital media and also with ISPs with bandwidth capping and net-non-neutral campaigning.</p><p>Through media and in conversation, I have heard complaints from brick-and-mortar store owners who say they "can't compete" with online retailers and one reason is the tax issue.  Yes, people are SUPPOSED to report internet purchases on their returns, but I doubt everybody does.  Even with a price match, they either eat the tax themselves or make you pay for it.  With the big-box stores like Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy, I would think that an online retailer like Amazon would be a very viable way for mom-and-pops to stay competitive and also reap huge gains in their customer bases.  If the small-shop store owners and the politicians who represent them really wanted to help them out, they would be trying to lax online retail tax law, not make it more invasive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be just money-grubbing politicians , but I think there 's more to it.Time and time again , I see businesses ( or industries as a whole ) lobby for laws that prevent or inhibit the adoption of internet-based technology because they do n't want to take the risks or pay the overhead to keep up with the times .
We 've seen it in the entertainment industry with digital media and also with ISPs with bandwidth capping and net-non-neutral campaigning.Through media and in conversation , I have heard complaints from brick-and-mortar store owners who say they " ca n't compete " with online retailers and one reason is the tax issue .
Yes , people are SUPPOSED to report internet purchases on their returns , but I doubt everybody does .
Even with a price match , they either eat the tax themselves or make you pay for it .
With the big-box stores like Wal-Mart , Target , and Best Buy , I would think that an online retailer like Amazon would be a very viable way for mom-and-pops to stay competitive and also reap huge gains in their customer bases .
If the small-shop store owners and the politicians who represent them really wanted to help them out , they would be trying to lax online retail tax law , not make it more invasive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be just money-grubbing politicians, but I think there's more to it.Time and time again, I see businesses (or industries as a whole) lobby for laws that prevent or inhibit the adoption of internet-based technology because they don't want to take the risks or pay the overhead to keep up with the times.
We've seen it in the entertainment industry with digital media and also with ISPs with bandwidth capping and net-non-neutral campaigning.Through media and in conversation, I have heard complaints from brick-and-mortar store owners who say they "can't compete" with online retailers and one reason is the tax issue.
Yes, people are SUPPOSED to report internet purchases on their returns, but I doubt everybody does.
Even with a price match, they either eat the tax themselves or make you pay for it.
With the big-box stores like Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy, I would think that an online retailer like Amazon would be a very viable way for mom-and-pops to stay competitive and also reap huge gains in their customer bases.
If the small-shop store owners and the politicians who represent them really wanted to help them out, they would be trying to lax online retail tax law, not make it more invasive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529245</id>
	<title>Frostttty Pissssed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246380300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TOOPIC!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>TOOPIC ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TOOPIC!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495</id>
	<title>Re:Catalogs</title>
	<author>sadler121</author>
	<datestamp>1246381080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is where the Federal Government actually has the authority per the Constitution to step in and regulate interstate commerce. Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where the Federal Government actually has the authority per the Constitution to step in and regulate interstate commerce .
Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is where the Federal Government actually has the authority per the Constitution to step in and regulate interstate commerce.
Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28533869</id>
	<title>If you live in RI...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246352580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chances are you can pick up an unencrypted wifi signal from MA or CT!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chances are you can pick up an unencrypted wifi signal from MA or CT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chances are you can pick up an unencrypted wifi signal from MA or CT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530125</id>
	<title>More RI Taxes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246383120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL. More businesses will be leaving for other states.  Only politicians and paupers will be left in that state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL .
More businesses will be leaving for other states .
Only politicians and paupers will be left in that state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL.
More businesses will be leaving for other states.
Only politicians and paupers will be left in that state.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530201</id>
	<title>Re:Catalogs</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1246383240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that tax rate should be 0.00\%.</p><p>Not <em>just</em> because I'm greedy either.  Lower prices due to not having to maintain a brick and mortar store are the only things that allow online stores to compete against local stores.  Because if you buy it locally you get the product instantly.  And they have to be sufficiently lower <em>including shipping costs</em> to beat out brick and mortar stores.  If you take away a huge portion of their tax advantage, they start to become tremendously less profitable, and thus less viable.  Without this advantage brick and mortar stores don't have much competition, and thus start charging more because they can.  And <em>you</em> lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that tax rate should be 0.00 \ % .Not just because I 'm greedy either .
Lower prices due to not having to maintain a brick and mortar store are the only things that allow online stores to compete against local stores .
Because if you buy it locally you get the product instantly .
And they have to be sufficiently lower including shipping costs to beat out brick and mortar stores .
If you take away a huge portion of their tax advantage , they start to become tremendously less profitable , and thus less viable .
Without this advantage brick and mortar stores do n't have much competition , and thus start charging more because they can .
And you lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that tax rate should be 0.00\%.Not just because I'm greedy either.
Lower prices due to not having to maintain a brick and mortar store are the only things that allow online stores to compete against local stores.
Because if you buy it locally you get the product instantly.
And they have to be sufficiently lower including shipping costs to beat out brick and mortar stores.
If you take away a huge portion of their tax advantage, they start to become tremendously less profitable, and thus less viable.
Without this advantage brick and mortar stores don't have much competition, and thus start charging more because they can.
And you lose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530765</id>
	<title>Re:I fear that pretty soon...</title>
	<author>alexborges</author>
	<datestamp>1246384680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel that those states will soon run out of hosting providers.</p><p>It makes NO sense to tax this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel that those states will soon run out of hosting providers.It makes NO sense to tax this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel that those states will soon run out of hosting providers.It makes NO sense to tax this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531905</id>
	<title>Re:Catalogs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246388040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.</p></div></blockquote><p>And who should the taxes be paid to? The State? City? County? Federal Government? Who validates that the correct taxes were paid? What about overseas purchases? Should you pay taxes if you make a purchase from a website situated in a different country? What about foreign users, should they pay the taxes for a purchase here?</p><p>The fact is that there is already a defined tax rate for your internet purchases, it's the sales tax rate of your State. The problem lies in that the vast majority of users don't report and pay the taxes on their internet purchases on their state income taxes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.And who should the taxes be paid to ?
The State ?
City ? County ?
Federal Government ?
Who validates that the correct taxes were paid ?
What about overseas purchases ?
Should you pay taxes if you make a purchase from a website situated in a different country ?
What about foreign users , should they pay the taxes for a purchase here ? The fact is that there is already a defined tax rate for your internet purchases , it 's the sales tax rate of your State .
The problem lies in that the vast majority of users do n't report and pay the taxes on their internet purchases on their state income taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.And who should the taxes be paid to?
The State?
City? County?
Federal Government?
Who validates that the correct taxes were paid?
What about overseas purchases?
Should you pay taxes if you make a purchase from a website situated in a different country?
What about foreign users, should they pay the taxes for a purchase here?The fact is that there is already a defined tax rate for your internet purchases, it's the sales tax rate of your State.
The problem lies in that the vast majority of users don't report and pay the taxes on their internet purchases on their state income taxes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529409</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully it will cut down on affiliate-link sp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246380840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taxing more things is not a fix for a budget deficit.  You don't give a coke addict more coke because they're going through withdrawals.  All 50 states need to learn to balance their budgets by *gasp* spending less money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxing more things is not a fix for a budget deficit .
You do n't give a coke addict more coke because they 're going through withdrawals .
All 50 states need to learn to balance their budgets by * gasp * spending less money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxing more things is not a fix for a budget deficit.
You don't give a coke addict more coke because they're going through withdrawals.
All 50 states need to learn to balance their budgets by *gasp* spending less money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28533601</id>
	<title>Re:North Carolina and Rhode Island, but not New Yo</title>
	<author>weiserfireman</author>
	<datestamp>1246394760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amazon started litigation to fight the New York tax that is ongoing.   By refusing to do business there, they would lose the legal case because they would be admitting the tax is legal.<br> <br>They are taking the position they have in other States, partly because the States are smaller, and partly because they would be forced into more litigation over the same issues they are fighting in New York.    I would bet their lawyers believe they will eventually win in SCOTUS and then they will restore their old practices.<br> <br>But, in March of this year, SCOTUS refused to hear a case from New Mexico involving Dell.   The New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled in that case that Dell's use of contractors to provide Warranty Support was enough of a nexus to require Dell to collect New Mexico Sales Tax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon started litigation to fight the New York tax that is ongoing .
By refusing to do business there , they would lose the legal case because they would be admitting the tax is legal .
They are taking the position they have in other States , partly because the States are smaller , and partly because they would be forced into more litigation over the same issues they are fighting in New York .
I would bet their lawyers believe they will eventually win in SCOTUS and then they will restore their old practices .
But , in March of this year , SCOTUS refused to hear a case from New Mexico involving Dell .
The New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled in that case that Dell 's use of contractors to provide Warranty Support was enough of a nexus to require Dell to collect New Mexico Sales Tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon started litigation to fight the New York tax that is ongoing.
By refusing to do business there, they would lose the legal case because they would be admitting the tax is legal.
They are taking the position they have in other States, partly because the States are smaller, and partly because they would be forced into more litigation over the same issues they are fighting in New York.
I would bet their lawyers believe they will eventually win in SCOTUS and then they will restore their old practices.
But, in March of this year, SCOTUS refused to hear a case from New Mexico involving Dell.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled in that case that Dell's use of contractors to provide Warranty Support was enough of a nexus to require Dell to collect New Mexico Sales Tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28534385</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246354620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You aren't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because your business is too lazy to implement a lookup table to comply with my laws. That's bullshit.</p></div><p>Really? What state do you own?  And get back to work you slacking mayor!</p><p>But seriously, your states laws have no sovereignty when the federal government has the same laws which over ride them.  Your state is still part of our country.<br>For better or worse, that's how it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are n't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because your business is too lazy to implement a lookup table to comply with my laws .
That 's bullshit.Really ?
What state do you own ?
And get back to work you slacking mayor ! But seriously , your states laws have no sovereignty when the federal government has the same laws which over ride them .
Your state is still part of our country.For better or worse , that 's how it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You aren't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because your business is too lazy to implement a lookup table to comply with my laws.
That's bullshit.Really?
What state do you own?
And get back to work you slacking mayor!But seriously, your states laws have no sovereignty when the federal government has the same laws which over ride them.
Your state is still part of our country.For better or worse, that's how it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531851</id>
	<title>tax it back to consumer</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1246387800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i wonder if amazon could turn around and place a "rhose island surcharge" on purchases made from rhode island to cover the expense. of course, this would upset consumers, which would create pressure to change the law. not sure if this is legal however.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i wonder if amazon could turn around and place a " rhose island surcharge " on purchases made from rhode island to cover the expense .
of course , this would upset consumers , which would create pressure to change the law .
not sure if this is legal however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wonder if amazon could turn around and place a "rhose island surcharge" on purchases made from rhode island to cover the expense.
of course, this would upset consumers, which would create pressure to change the law.
not sure if this is legal however.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531341</id>
	<title>is our education system really this bad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246386180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It truly amazes me how few people understand even basic economics.</p><p>Amazon does not have brick and mortar stores.  So it's not the same.  In fact, when the tax laws where written that apply to "mail-order" they understood this basic concept. Based on those laws you only have to pay sales tax if the company you're ordering from has stores(brick and mortar) in your county.</p><p>Facts: Amazon pays taxes.  They pay taxes on their employees, properties, income, purchases, etc.  The shipping companies also pay taxes.  In order to pay all of these taxes the price of their products and services get marked up.<br>So, when you order an item from Amazon, a surprising amount of what you're really paying for is indirect tax.  Including local taxes paid by the shipping company.</p><p>The gross tax lean across the US is over 50\%.  It's insane.  Anyone who agrees that there should be any new and/or more taxation is a complete and utter moron.  More taxation increases the cost of living, which increases poverty, which increases crime rates, which has the end effect of idiot politicians stating that we need more tax.  It's a corrupt cycle that killing this country and needs to end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It truly amazes me how few people understand even basic economics.Amazon does not have brick and mortar stores .
So it 's not the same .
In fact , when the tax laws where written that apply to " mail-order " they understood this basic concept .
Based on those laws you only have to pay sales tax if the company you 're ordering from has stores ( brick and mortar ) in your county.Facts : Amazon pays taxes .
They pay taxes on their employees , properties , income , purchases , etc .
The shipping companies also pay taxes .
In order to pay all of these taxes the price of their products and services get marked up.So , when you order an item from Amazon , a surprising amount of what you 're really paying for is indirect tax .
Including local taxes paid by the shipping company.The gross tax lean across the US is over 50 \ % .
It 's insane .
Anyone who agrees that there should be any new and/or more taxation is a complete and utter moron .
More taxation increases the cost of living , which increases poverty , which increases crime rates , which has the end effect of idiot politicians stating that we need more tax .
It 's a corrupt cycle that killing this country and needs to end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It truly amazes me how few people understand even basic economics.Amazon does not have brick and mortar stores.
So it's not the same.
In fact, when the tax laws where written that apply to "mail-order" they understood this basic concept.
Based on those laws you only have to pay sales tax if the company you're ordering from has stores(brick and mortar) in your county.Facts: Amazon pays taxes.
They pay taxes on their employees, properties, income, purchases, etc.
The shipping companies also pay taxes.
In order to pay all of these taxes the price of their products and services get marked up.So, when you order an item from Amazon, a surprising amount of what you're really paying for is indirect tax.
Including local taxes paid by the shipping company.The gross tax lean across the US is over 50\%.
It's insane.
Anyone who agrees that there should be any new and/or more taxation is a complete and utter moron.
More taxation increases the cost of living, which increases poverty, which increases crime rates, which has the end effect of idiot politicians stating that we need more tax.
It's a corrupt cycle that killing this country and needs to end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28537465</id>
	<title>Simple way to handle sales tax problem</title>
	<author>Eric Elliott</author>
	<datestamp>1246372440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We can simplify Internet taxes same as I have done for several years, complete no order with sales tax.  Always I find same product without sales tax @ lower price thru other store.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We can simplify Internet taxes same as I have done for several years , complete no order with sales tax .
Always I find same product without sales tax @ lower price thru other store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can simplify Internet taxes same as I have done for several years, complete no order with sales tax.
Always I find same product without sales tax @ lower price thru other store.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530063</id>
	<title>Re:I fear that pretty soon...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246382880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hawaii is close...</p><p>It's not passed yet (but this is the best time to catch it).</p><p>If you're in Hawaii get on the phone lines to your state senator and harass them about this.</p><p><a href="http://www.starbulletin.com/business/20090627\_Amazon\_poised\_to\_cut\_affiliate\_program\_in\_Hawaii.html" title="starbulletin.com">http://www.starbulletin.com/business/20090627\_Amazon\_poised\_to\_cut\_affiliate\_program\_in\_Hawaii.html</a> [starbulletin.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hawaii is close...It 's not passed yet ( but this is the best time to catch it ) .If you 're in Hawaii get on the phone lines to your state senator and harass them about this.http : //www.starbulletin.com/business/20090627 \ _Amazon \ _poised \ _to \ _cut \ _affiliate \ _program \ _in \ _Hawaii.html [ starbulletin.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hawaii is close...It's not passed yet (but this is the best time to catch it).If you're in Hawaii get on the phone lines to your state senator and harass them about this.http://www.starbulletin.com/business/20090627\_Amazon\_poised\_to\_cut\_affiliate\_program\_in\_Hawaii.html [starbulletin.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529851</id>
	<title>Absolutely not</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1246382160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is where the Federal Government actually has the authority per the Constitution to step in and regulate interstate commerce. Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.</i></p><p>You aren't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because your business is too lazy to implement a lookup table to comply with my laws.  That's bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where the Federal Government actually has the authority per the Constitution to step in and regulate interstate commerce .
Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.You are n't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because your business is too lazy to implement a lookup table to comply with my laws .
That 's bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is where the Federal Government actually has the authority per the Constitution to step in and regulate interstate commerce.
Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.You aren't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because your business is too lazy to implement a lookup table to comply with my laws.
That's bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529599</id>
	<title>Re:Catalogs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246381380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, you are describing the reason why this has not, and cannot easily, be implemented.</p><p>An easier approach might be to replace our current convoluted nightmare of an income tax with a <a href="http://www.fairtax.org/" title="fairtax.org" rel="nofollow">national sales tax</a> [fairtax.org]. Yes, I know that is not money collected by individual states but, since almost all merchants are already set up to collect local state taxes, it's not much of a stretch to have them collect the federal tax as well. Since that tax can then easily be levied on internet sales, federal collections will increase - which will result in more money becoming available to the individual states. A much simpler system than what we have now.</p><p>It also has the added benefit of everyone keeping <i>all</i> the money they earn until they choose to spend it on something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you are describing the reason why this has not , and can not easily , be implemented.An easier approach might be to replace our current convoluted nightmare of an income tax with a national sales tax [ fairtax.org ] .
Yes , I know that is not money collected by individual states but , since almost all merchants are already set up to collect local state taxes , it 's not much of a stretch to have them collect the federal tax as well .
Since that tax can then easily be levied on internet sales , federal collections will increase - which will result in more money becoming available to the individual states .
A much simpler system than what we have now.It also has the added benefit of everyone keeping all the money they earn until they choose to spend it on something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you are describing the reason why this has not, and cannot easily, be implemented.An easier approach might be to replace our current convoluted nightmare of an income tax with a national sales tax [fairtax.org].
Yes, I know that is not money collected by individual states but, since almost all merchants are already set up to collect local state taxes, it's not much of a stretch to have them collect the federal tax as well.
Since that tax can then easily be levied on internet sales, federal collections will increase - which will result in more money becoming available to the individual states.
A much simpler system than what we have now.It also has the added benefit of everyone keeping all the money they earn until they choose to spend it on something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530807</id>
	<title>The Looters &amp; the Moochers</title>
	<author>TheAngryMob</author>
	<datestamp>1246384740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RI (and NC before them) are a looter's government, demanding money they haven't earned. My parents taught me that was theft, but the states call it "taxes."</p><p>These states are poorly managed and now want a chunk of money they didn't earn and have no right to to make up for their incompetence and stupidity. Good for Amazon. They can continue to "Shrug" as much as they want until states realize that being business-friendly means your state has money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RI ( and NC before them ) are a looter 's government , demanding money they have n't earned .
My parents taught me that was theft , but the states call it " taxes .
" These states are poorly managed and now want a chunk of money they did n't earn and have no right to to make up for their incompetence and stupidity .
Good for Amazon .
They can continue to " Shrug " as much as they want until states realize that being business-friendly means your state has money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RI (and NC before them) are a looter's government, demanding money they haven't earned.
My parents taught me that was theft, but the states call it "taxes.
"These states are poorly managed and now want a chunk of money they didn't earn and have no right to to make up for their incompetence and stupidity.
Good for Amazon.
They can continue to "Shrug" as much as they want until states realize that being business-friendly means your state has money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530317</id>
	<title>Re:Catalogs</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1246383540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WRONG.</p><p>There are over 14,000 taxing authorities in the US that do not align based on postal codes and that change with every township, city and county level anexation.  It is a very complex problem and one that is very expensive to solve.  It also requires constant updates. You have to use very expensive third party data providers and often very expensive services to pay all the sales taxes.</p><p>This creates a barrier to entry that will keep many small businesses from ever growing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WRONG.There are over 14,000 taxing authorities in the US that do not align based on postal codes and that change with every township , city and county level anexation .
It is a very complex problem and one that is very expensive to solve .
It also requires constant updates .
You have to use very expensive third party data providers and often very expensive services to pay all the sales taxes.This creates a barrier to entry that will keep many small businesses from ever growing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WRONG.There are over 14,000 taxing authorities in the US that do not align based on postal codes and that change with every township, city and county level anexation.
It is a very complex problem and one that is very expensive to solve.
It also requires constant updates.
You have to use very expensive third party data providers and often very expensive services to pay all the sales taxes.This creates a barrier to entry that will keep many small businesses from ever growing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530353</id>
	<title>North Carolina and Rhode Island, but not New York?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246383660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, I just found the following on Amazon's website.</p><p>LINK: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=468512" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=468512</a> [amazon.com]</p><p>(not sure how to make a pretty link on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.)</p><p><i>Items Shipped to New York State<br>Effective June 1, 2008, Amazon.com LLC will begin collecting sales tax on items shipped to destinations within the State of New York as New York has enacted a new law requiring out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax based on advertising. Amazon has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this provision. However, as required by the law, we must still begin collecting New York sales tax beginning on that date.</i></p><p><i>Please note that if you place an order prior to June 1, 2008, your Order Total may not include an estimate of New York sales taxes, but those taxes may still be charged if your order is readied for shipment on or after that date.</i></p><p>So, they pay taxes to NY, but won't for North Carolina and Rhode Island?  I haven't seen anywhere that they revoked New York webstore owners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , I just found the following on Amazon 's website.LINK : http : //www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html ? nodeId = 468512 [ amazon.com ] ( not sure how to make a pretty link on / .
) Items Shipped to New York StateEffective June 1 , 2008 , Amazon.com LLC will begin collecting sales tax on items shipped to destinations within the State of New York as New York has enacted a new law requiring out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax based on advertising .
Amazon has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this provision .
However , as required by the law , we must still begin collecting New York sales tax beginning on that date.Please note that if you place an order prior to June 1 , 2008 , your Order Total may not include an estimate of New York sales taxes , but those taxes may still be charged if your order is readied for shipment on or after that date.So , they pay taxes to NY , but wo n't for North Carolina and Rhode Island ?
I have n't seen anywhere that they revoked New York webstore owners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, I just found the following on Amazon's website.LINK: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=468512 [amazon.com](not sure how to make a pretty link on /.
)Items Shipped to New York StateEffective June 1, 2008, Amazon.com LLC will begin collecting sales tax on items shipped to destinations within the State of New York as New York has enacted a new law requiring out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax based on advertising.
Amazon has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this provision.
However, as required by the law, we must still begin collecting New York sales tax beginning on that date.Please note that if you place an order prior to June 1, 2008, your Order Total may not include an estimate of New York sales taxes, but those taxes may still be charged if your order is readied for shipment on or after that date.So, they pay taxes to NY, but won't for North Carolina and Rhode Island?
I haven't seen anywhere that they revoked New York webstore owners.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529279</id>
	<title>Hopefully it will cut down on affiliate-link spam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246380420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Let all the states do this.  There's too much affiliate-link spam going on already.  Kill 2 birds with one stone - lower spam AND help fix the budget deficits.
</p><p>
The only ones complaining are the affiliates and Amazon - but they're the source of the problem to begin with.  Let them pay their fair share of taxes, so that others don't have to pay more than their share to make up for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let all the states do this .
There 's too much affiliate-link spam going on already .
Kill 2 birds with one stone - lower spam AND help fix the budget deficits .
The only ones complaining are the affiliates and Amazon - but they 're the source of the problem to begin with .
Let them pay their fair share of taxes , so that others do n't have to pay more than their share to make up for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Let all the states do this.
There's too much affiliate-link spam going on already.
Kill 2 birds with one stone - lower spam AND help fix the budget deficits.
The only ones complaining are the affiliates and Amazon - but they're the source of the problem to begin with.
Let them pay their fair share of taxes, so that others don't have to pay more than their share to make up for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530155</id>
	<title>Rhode Island is not actually an island.</title>
	<author>gotpoetry</author>
	<datestamp>1246383180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in RI and made a whole $4.52 in the past two years from the affiliate section of my site ( <a href="http://www.gotpoetry.com/Product.html" title="gotpoetry.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.gotpoetry.com/Product.html</a> [gotpoetry.com] )!  Now how am I going to buy my next extra large Regular Dunkin Doughnuts coffee!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in RI and made a whole $ 4.52 in the past two years from the affiliate section of my site ( http : //www.gotpoetry.com/Product.html [ gotpoetry.com ] ) !
Now how am I going to buy my next extra large Regular Dunkin Doughnuts coffee !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in RI and made a whole $4.52 in the past two years from the affiliate section of my site ( http://www.gotpoetry.com/Product.html [gotpoetry.com] )!
Now how am I going to buy my next extra large Regular Dunkin Doughnuts coffee!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529531</id>
	<title>Re:Catalogs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246381200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Most accounting software simply isn't set up for taxation in all 50 states, especially automatically.</i> </p><p>No, but any accounting software could be altered in under an hour to do so.  It's a tiny, tiny programming problem.  Hell, most small business owners already pay a subcription service to keep their accounting software up to date with their own state's tax rates for employment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most accounting software simply is n't set up for taxation in all 50 states , especially automatically .
No , but any accounting software could be altered in under an hour to do so .
It 's a tiny , tiny programming problem .
Hell , most small business owners already pay a subcription service to keep their accounting software up to date with their own state 's tax rates for employment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most accounting software simply isn't set up for taxation in all 50 states, especially automatically.
No, but any accounting software could be altered in under an hour to do so.
It's a tiny, tiny programming problem.
Hell, most small business owners already pay a subcription service to keep their accounting software up to date with their own state's tax rates for employment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377</id>
	<title>Catalogs</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1246380720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is difficult, because an internet retailer is a lot like a catalog retailer, who might have 80\% of their business out of state and isn't set up to take 50 states' differing tax rates and does not have the accounting muscle to pay 50 different state taxes each quarter. I think that's the main problem. And then you have the issue of ship to in one state (NC for example) and bill to (non-taxable like Oregon) etc etc. It creates a lot of headaches. Catalogs typically only pay/charge sales taxes for the state their accounting division is in. Multiply this by millions and millions of customers and you can see why Amazon would oppose this merely on the accounting issue. Most accounting software simply isn't set up for taxation in all 50 states, especially automatically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is difficult , because an internet retailer is a lot like a catalog retailer , who might have 80 \ % of their business out of state and is n't set up to take 50 states ' differing tax rates and does not have the accounting muscle to pay 50 different state taxes each quarter .
I think that 's the main problem .
And then you have the issue of ship to in one state ( NC for example ) and bill to ( non-taxable like Oregon ) etc etc .
It creates a lot of headaches .
Catalogs typically only pay/charge sales taxes for the state their accounting division is in .
Multiply this by millions and millions of customers and you can see why Amazon would oppose this merely on the accounting issue .
Most accounting software simply is n't set up for taxation in all 50 states , especially automatically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is difficult, because an internet retailer is a lot like a catalog retailer, who might have 80\% of their business out of state and isn't set up to take 50 states' differing tax rates and does not have the accounting muscle to pay 50 different state taxes each quarter.
I think that's the main problem.
And then you have the issue of ship to in one state (NC for example) and bill to (non-taxable like Oregon) etc etc.
It creates a lot of headaches.
Catalogs typically only pay/charge sales taxes for the state their accounting division is in.
Multiply this by millions and millions of customers and you can see why Amazon would oppose this merely on the accounting issue.
Most accounting software simply isn't set up for taxation in all 50 states, especially automatically.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529509</id>
	<title>Re:Catalogs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246381140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem businesses like amazon face are many.  The servers are in states A/B/C/etc, the warehouses are in states D/E/F/etc, the billing is sent to state G/H/I/etc.  The item may be shipped to J/K/L/Etc.  Everyone of those states wants 'tax money' from that transaction.  Not to mention some counties/cities have their own tax structures.  Add in affiliates and individual business owners who sell through amazon and you have a legal quagmire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem businesses like amazon face are many .
The servers are in states A/B/C/etc , the warehouses are in states D/E/F/etc , the billing is sent to state G/H/I/etc .
The item may be shipped to J/K/L/Etc .
Everyone of those states wants 'tax money ' from that transaction .
Not to mention some counties/cities have their own tax structures .
Add in affiliates and individual business owners who sell through amazon and you have a legal quagmire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem businesses like amazon face are many.
The servers are in states A/B/C/etc, the warehouses are in states D/E/F/etc, the billing is sent to state G/H/I/etc.
The item may be shipped to J/K/L/Etc.
Everyone of those states wants 'tax money' from that transaction.
Not to mention some counties/cities have their own tax structures.
Add in affiliates and individual business owners who sell through amazon and you have a legal quagmire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28533947</id>
	<title>Re:Catalogs</title>
	<author>acklenx</author>
	<datestamp>1246352940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.</p></div><p>As long as that rate is ZERO!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.As long as that rate is ZERO !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.As long as that rate is ZERO!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530267</id>
	<title>Re:Catalogs</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1246383420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's called a nexus or something like that. states can levy a sales tax on anyone operating within their borders or with a "nexus" like an office or a warehouse. Dell charges sales tax in NY because they have a support office and kiosks here. NY and Amazon have fought over this for years until the AG had the brilliant idea the affiliates were sales people and that meant a "nexus". a court agreed with him and Amazon is appealing. it looks like Amazon will probably lose because there is case law that says if you have sales people in a state and they aren't employees then the state can still collect sales tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's called a nexus or something like that .
states can levy a sales tax on anyone operating within their borders or with a " nexus " like an office or a warehouse .
Dell charges sales tax in NY because they have a support office and kiosks here .
NY and Amazon have fought over this for years until the AG had the brilliant idea the affiliates were sales people and that meant a " nexus " .
a court agreed with him and Amazon is appealing .
it looks like Amazon will probably lose because there is case law that says if you have sales people in a state and they are n't employees then the state can still collect sales tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's called a nexus or something like that.
states can levy a sales tax on anyone operating within their borders or with a "nexus" like an office or a warehouse.
Dell charges sales tax in NY because they have a support office and kiosks here.
NY and Amazon have fought over this for years until the AG had the brilliant idea the affiliates were sales people and that meant a "nexus".
a court agreed with him and Amazon is appealing.
it looks like Amazon will probably lose because there is case law that says if you have sales people in a state and they aren't employees then the state can still collect sales tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28535929</id>
	<title>Re:I fear that pretty soon...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246362480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Editors, please update the summary. Hawaii is out too, in a preemptive strike.</p><p>http://www.starbulletin.com/news/breaking/49531647.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Editors , please update the summary .
Hawaii is out too , in a preemptive strike.http : //www.starbulletin.com/news/breaking/49531647.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Editors, please update the summary.
Hawaii is out too, in a preemptive strike.http://www.starbulletin.com/news/breaking/49531647.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28532205</id>
	<title>It's not just states</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1246389060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Having worked on ERP accounting systems, I can say that sales tax should always be calculated based on the ship-to address. That said, smaller accounting packages may not be set up to support taxation for all 50 states.</p></div><p>It's not just fifty because it's not just states. Counties and cities impose their own sales tax on some items but not on others. Which accounting package do you recommend for determining the tax rate for every good in every city of every county of every U.S. state?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having worked on ERP accounting systems , I can say that sales tax should always be calculated based on the ship-to address .
That said , smaller accounting packages may not be set up to support taxation for all 50 states.It 's not just fifty because it 's not just states .
Counties and cities impose their own sales tax on some items but not on others .
Which accounting package do you recommend for determining the tax rate for every good in every city of every county of every U.S. state ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having worked on ERP accounting systems, I can say that sales tax should always be calculated based on the ship-to address.
That said, smaller accounting packages may not be set up to support taxation for all 50 states.It's not just fifty because it's not just states.
Counties and cities impose their own sales tax on some items but not on others.
Which accounting package do you recommend for determining the tax rate for every good in every city of every county of every U.S. state?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529615</id>
	<title>Re:Catalogs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246381440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course this could easily be fixed by the Federal Government setting a national sales tax<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course this could easily be fixed by the Federal Government setting a national sales tax : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course this could easily be fixed by the Federal Government setting a national sales tax :D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28537989</id>
	<title>Schadenfreude</title>
	<author>merc</author>
	<datestamp>1246376940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of the WSJ "Missing Millionaires" <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html" title="wsj.com">article</a> [wsj.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of the WSJ " Missing Millionaires " article [ wsj.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of the WSJ "Missing Millionaires" article [wsj.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28533103</id>
	<title>Re:tax it back to consumer</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1246392480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds like you're looking at the issue through rhose-colored glasses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>No, that would not be legal; there are some other posts in this discussion that do a better job of explaining why then I can, though.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like you 're looking at the issue through rhose-colored glasses ; ) No , that would not be legal ; there are some other posts in this discussion that do a better job of explaining why then I can , though.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like you're looking at the issue through rhose-colored glasses ;)No, that would not be legal; there are some other posts in this discussion that do a better job of explaining why then I can, though.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530959</id>
	<title>old world, meet new world</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1246385100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that they're being unreasonable, per se. It's that they're applying and old model to a new technology. It's a bit like trying to do rocket science with the math available to Aristotle.</p><p>Physical location matters little on the Internet. But our countries and states are defined by physical location. So it's not a trivial problem, but applying solutions that simply don't fit will not solve anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that they 're being unreasonable , per se .
It 's that they 're applying and old model to a new technology .
It 's a bit like trying to do rocket science with the math available to Aristotle.Physical location matters little on the Internet .
But our countries and states are defined by physical location .
So it 's not a trivial problem , but applying solutions that simply do n't fit will not solve anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that they're being unreasonable, per se.
It's that they're applying and old model to a new technology.
It's a bit like trying to do rocket science with the math available to Aristotle.Physical location matters little on the Internet.
But our countries and states are defined by physical location.
So it's not a trivial problem, but applying solutions that simply don't fit will not solve anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28536295</id>
	<title>Re:Catalogs</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1246364340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Lower prices due to not having to maintain a brick and mortar store are the only things that allow online stores to compete against local stores.</p></div><p>Nonsense. There are many other appealing factors for shopping online. Convenience being the biggest. I'd buy online even if it were more expensive than brick-and-mortar. Other factors include a bigger range of products, more specialized product offerings, and superior customer service.</p><p>I'd much rather wait a day or two for an item to arrive at my door than waste my time driving to the local mall. Have you seen the kind of people who shop at the stores? It's completely disgusting. And the sales staff are usually incompetent and/or insulting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lower prices due to not having to maintain a brick and mortar store are the only things that allow online stores to compete against local stores.Nonsense .
There are many other appealing factors for shopping online .
Convenience being the biggest .
I 'd buy online even if it were more expensive than brick-and-mortar .
Other factors include a bigger range of products , more specialized product offerings , and superior customer service.I 'd much rather wait a day or two for an item to arrive at my door than waste my time driving to the local mall .
Have you seen the kind of people who shop at the stores ?
It 's completely disgusting .
And the sales staff are usually incompetent and/or insulting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Lower prices due to not having to maintain a brick and mortar store are the only things that allow online stores to compete against local stores.Nonsense.
There are many other appealing factors for shopping online.
Convenience being the biggest.
I'd buy online even if it were more expensive than brick-and-mortar.
Other factors include a bigger range of products, more specialized product offerings, and superior customer service.I'd much rather wait a day or two for an item to arrive at my door than waste my time driving to the local mall.
Have you seen the kind of people who shop at the stores?
It's completely disgusting.
And the sales staff are usually incompetent and/or insulting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28533829</id>
	<title>The real issue in NC...</title>
	<author>tupawk</author>
	<datestamp>1246352400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is not about taxing the items that are sold (as you are already supposed to report these on your state tax filing) but Amazon would be required to tax money it pays out to affiliates. This is a double taxation! Amazon is already required to pay any business tax on itself and the affiliate that receives money from Amazon needs to report this as income (to be taxed).</p><p>There is a business in Asheville NC that derives approximately 2/3rd's of its income from Amazon affiliate sales. Now the NC legislature wants them to be taxed on it once when the payment is actually made and again when they pay income tax? As a result the business is closing up shop in NC and moving to another state. Way to go NC! No not only are they not going to get the affiliate tax money their greedy little hands so desired, they will also be missing out on the income tax the owners paid, the other local businesses that supported the moving business will be hurt (more lost tax revenue), shops and restaurants they ate at, etc... the list goes on and on and on. Our governor actually was saying how this was such a good thing (the tax) and it was a way to "make up" the budget deficit. What an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is not about taxing the items that are sold ( as you are already supposed to report these on your state tax filing ) but Amazon would be required to tax money it pays out to affiliates .
This is a double taxation !
Amazon is already required to pay any business tax on itself and the affiliate that receives money from Amazon needs to report this as income ( to be taxed ) .There is a business in Asheville NC that derives approximately 2/3rd 's of its income from Amazon affiliate sales .
Now the NC legislature wants them to be taxed on it once when the payment is actually made and again when they pay income tax ?
As a result the business is closing up shop in NC and moving to another state .
Way to go NC !
No not only are they not going to get the affiliate tax money their greedy little hands so desired , they will also be missing out on the income tax the owners paid , the other local businesses that supported the moving business will be hurt ( more lost tax revenue ) , shops and restaurants they ate at , etc... the list goes on and on and on .
Our governor actually was saying how this was such a good thing ( the tax ) and it was a way to " make up " the budget deficit .
What an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is not about taxing the items that are sold (as you are already supposed to report these on your state tax filing) but Amazon would be required to tax money it pays out to affiliates.
This is a double taxation!
Amazon is already required to pay any business tax on itself and the affiliate that receives money from Amazon needs to report this as income (to be taxed).There is a business in Asheville NC that derives approximately 2/3rd's of its income from Amazon affiliate sales.
Now the NC legislature wants them to be taxed on it once when the payment is actually made and again when they pay income tax?
As a result the business is closing up shop in NC and moving to another state.
Way to go NC!
No not only are they not going to get the affiliate tax money their greedy little hands so desired, they will also be missing out on the income tax the owners paid, the other local businesses that supported the moving business will be hurt (more lost tax revenue), shops and restaurants they ate at, etc... the list goes on and on and on.
Our governor actually was saying how this was such a good thing (the tax) and it was a way to "make up" the budget deficit.
What an idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531913</id>
	<title>Re:Catalogs</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1246388040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if the transaction is happening online but wholly within in a state?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the transaction is happening online but wholly within in a state ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the transaction is happening online but wholly within in a state?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529543</id>
	<title>Re:Catalogs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246381260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having worked on ERP accounting systems, I can say that sales tax should always be calculated based on the ship-to address.  That said, smaller accounting packages may not be set up to support taxation for all 50 states.</p><p>However, any large corporation should understand that using a system that IS capable of handling multiple tax jurisdictions is an expected cost of doing business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having worked on ERP accounting systems , I can say that sales tax should always be calculated based on the ship-to address .
That said , smaller accounting packages may not be set up to support taxation for all 50 states.However , any large corporation should understand that using a system that IS capable of handling multiple tax jurisdictions is an expected cost of doing business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having worked on ERP accounting systems, I can say that sales tax should always be calculated based on the ship-to address.
That said, smaller accounting packages may not be set up to support taxation for all 50 states.However, any large corporation should understand that using a system that IS capable of handling multiple tax jurisdictions is an expected cost of doing business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28532203</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely not</title>
	<author>SignalFreq</author>
	<datestamp>1246389060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>This is where the Federal Government actually has the authority per the Constitution to step in and regulate interstate commerce. Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.</i> </p><p>You aren't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because your business is too lazy to implement a lookup table to comply with my laws.  That's bullshit.</p></div><p>
You aren't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because <b>you</b> are too lazy to <b>self report your out of state purchases</b> to comply with <b>your</b> laws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where the Federal Government actually has the authority per the Constitution to step in and regulate interstate commerce .
Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases .
You are n't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because your business is too lazy to implement a lookup table to comply with my laws .
That 's bullshit .
You are n't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because you are too lazy to self report your out of state purchases to comply with your laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is where the Federal Government actually has the authority per the Constitution to step in and regulate interstate commerce.
Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.
You aren't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because your business is too lazy to implement a lookup table to comply with my laws.
That's bullshit.
You aren't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because you are too lazy to self report your out of state purchases to comply with your laws.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28534427</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246354740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>This is where the Federal Government actually has the authority per the Constitution to step in and regulate interstate commerce. Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.</i> </p><p>You aren't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because your business is too lazy to implement a lookup table to comply with my laws.  That's bullshit.</p></div><p>If you put it like that, then the sovereignty of your state was "trampled" by the original US Constitution, which your state <b>signed onto in the first place</b>. Or in other words, your state "trampled" itself.</p><p>If this was taking place entirely within the borders of your state then you might have a point. But to say that your state has the authority to tax a transaction which occurred in a different state (or country) is completely asinine.<br>It's the point of transaction that dictates where the taxes get levied, for example when taking an order over the phone it's based on where the merchant is located. Same should go for the internet. This really isn't a hard concept, but some states (and judges) are so out of it technologically speaking they just don't seem to grasp this easy concept.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where the Federal Government actually has the authority per the Constitution to step in and regulate interstate commerce .
Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases .
You are n't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because your business is too lazy to implement a lookup table to comply with my laws .
That 's bullshit.If you put it like that , then the sovereignty of your state was " trampled " by the original US Constitution , which your state signed onto in the first place .
Or in other words , your state " trampled " itself.If this was taking place entirely within the borders of your state then you might have a point .
But to say that your state has the authority to tax a transaction which occurred in a different state ( or country ) is completely asinine.It 's the point of transaction that dictates where the taxes get levied , for example when taking an order over the phone it 's based on where the merchant is located .
Same should go for the internet .
This really is n't a hard concept , but some states ( and judges ) are so out of it technologically speaking they just do n't seem to grasp this easy concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is where the Federal Government actually has the authority per the Constitution to step in and regulate interstate commerce.
Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.
You aren't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because your business is too lazy to implement a lookup table to comply with my laws.
That's bullshit.If you put it like that, then the sovereignty of your state was "trampled" by the original US Constitution, which your state signed onto in the first place.
Or in other words, your state "trampled" itself.If this was taking place entirely within the borders of your state then you might have a point.
But to say that your state has the authority to tax a transaction which occurred in a different state (or country) is completely asinine.It's the point of transaction that dictates where the taxes get levied, for example when taking an order over the phone it's based on where the merchant is located.
Same should go for the internet.
This really isn't a hard concept, but some states (and judges) are so out of it technologically speaking they just don't seem to grasp this easy concept.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529851</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28532929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28535929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28533103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28536295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28533947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28534427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28532205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28532203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28541927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28533601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1515222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28534385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1515222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530063
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28535929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1515222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1515222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529543
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28532205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531905
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529851
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28534385
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28532203
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28534427
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530201
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28532929
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28536295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28533947
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1515222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1515222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1515222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529245
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1515222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28533601
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1515222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28529955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28541927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1515222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28531851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28533103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1515222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1515222.28530155
</commentlist>
</conversation>
