<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_17_1929217</id>
	<title>Calling B.S. On Amazon's Taxation Arguments</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258487820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"Over at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Michael Mazerov <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&amp;id=2990&amp;emailView=1">carefully picks apart Amazon's arguments against collecting sales taxes</a>, arguing that they simply do not withstand scrutiny. While Amazon officials say collecting sales tax in every state <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/amazon/archives/142371.asp">would be excessively burdensome</a>, Mazerov notes the e-tailer <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=468512">already collects sales tax in virtually every state for numerous other companies</a> that sell on its website. Mazerov also finds it disingenuous for Amazon to argue that it should not have to help support public services in states in which it has no physical presence when the company fails to support public services in most of the states in which it <em>does</em> have a physical presence. Finally, Mazerov isn't buying Amazon's argument that its opposition to collecting sales tax is not driven by a desire to gain a price advantage over competitors, which he finds at odds with the company's own actions and SEC filings. By claiming sales-tax immunity, says Mazerov, Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5\%-10\% price advantage over local retailers, while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Over at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , Michael Mazerov carefully picks apart Amazon 's arguments against collecting sales taxes , arguing that they simply do not withstand scrutiny .
While Amazon officials say collecting sales tax in every state would be excessively burdensome , Mazerov notes the e-tailer already collects sales tax in virtually every state for numerous other companies that sell on its website .
Mazerov also finds it disingenuous for Amazon to argue that it should not have to help support public services in states in which it has no physical presence when the company fails to support public services in most of the states in which it does have a physical presence .
Finally , Mazerov is n't buying Amazon 's argument that its opposition to collecting sales tax is not driven by a desire to gain a price advantage over competitors , which he finds at odds with the company 's own actions and SEC filings .
By claiming sales-tax immunity , says Mazerov , Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5 \ % -10 \ % price advantage over local retailers , while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Over at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Michael Mazerov carefully picks apart Amazon's arguments against collecting sales taxes, arguing that they simply do not withstand scrutiny.
While Amazon officials say collecting sales tax in every state would be excessively burdensome, Mazerov notes the e-tailer already collects sales tax in virtually every state for numerous other companies that sell on its website.
Mazerov also finds it disingenuous for Amazon to argue that it should not have to help support public services in states in which it has no physical presence when the company fails to support public services in most of the states in which it does have a physical presence.
Finally, Mazerov isn't buying Amazon's argument that its opposition to collecting sales tax is not driven by a desire to gain a price advantage over competitors, which he finds at odds with the company's own actions and SEC filings.
By claiming sales-tax immunity, says Mazerov, Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5\%-10\% price advantage over local retailers, while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134278</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258450560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I have been told many times by my conservative friends, liberals attack the person, conservatives attack the issue.
<p>
Someone has to pay for stuff.  We want stuff, as is shown by the increase in the national debt as a percentage of gross national product since the year 2000.  As mentioned by the foundation way back in 2003.  We say we want to cut costs, but in reality the best we can do it keep costs about the same percentage, about 20\% at the federal level I believe, or the productivity of the United States.
</p><p>
As more people buy online, and states that rely on sales tax find that money going away, something will happen because taxes do pay for stuff we want, and we won't give it up.    Everyone has their pet pigs.
</p><p>
So what can happen.  Internet retailers may have to pay the sales tax, since local residents will not do so voluntarily.  This will not be an issue for the big guys like Amazon, but may kil some of the smaller shops.  We can go to income tax, which is deemed as less progresive so is opposed to persons who are opposed to transferring wealth.  We can call in states like North and South Dakota and Alaska that tend to use the Federal budget s their personal expense account and make them support themselves.  This will free up biliions of dollars that states can then use as transfers from federal taxes.  For instance, on of the Dakotas had a billion dollar surplus, presumably from a 3 billion dollar federal payment in excess of federal taxes.  This itself will solve most problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I have been told many times by my conservative friends , liberals attack the person , conservatives attack the issue .
Someone has to pay for stuff .
We want stuff , as is shown by the increase in the national debt as a percentage of gross national product since the year 2000 .
As mentioned by the foundation way back in 2003 .
We say we want to cut costs , but in reality the best we can do it keep costs about the same percentage , about 20 \ % at the federal level I believe , or the productivity of the United States .
As more people buy online , and states that rely on sales tax find that money going away , something will happen because taxes do pay for stuff we want , and we wo n't give it up .
Everyone has their pet pigs .
So what can happen .
Internet retailers may have to pay the sales tax , since local residents will not do so voluntarily .
This will not be an issue for the big guys like Amazon , but may kil some of the smaller shops .
We can go to income tax , which is deemed as less progresive so is opposed to persons who are opposed to transferring wealth .
We can call in states like North and South Dakota and Alaska that tend to use the Federal budget s their personal expense account and make them support themselves .
This will free up biliions of dollars that states can then use as transfers from federal taxes .
For instance , on of the Dakotas had a billion dollar surplus , presumably from a 3 billion dollar federal payment in excess of federal taxes .
This itself will solve most problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I have been told many times by my conservative friends, liberals attack the person, conservatives attack the issue.
Someone has to pay for stuff.
We want stuff, as is shown by the increase in the national debt as a percentage of gross national product since the year 2000.
As mentioned by the foundation way back in 2003.
We say we want to cut costs, but in reality the best we can do it keep costs about the same percentage, about 20\% at the federal level I believe, or the productivity of the United States.
As more people buy online, and states that rely on sales tax find that money going away, something will happen because taxes do pay for stuff we want, and we won't give it up.
Everyone has their pet pigs.
So what can happen.
Internet retailers may have to pay the sales tax, since local residents will not do so voluntarily.
This will not be an issue for the big guys like Amazon, but may kil some of the smaller shops.
We can go to income tax, which is deemed as less progresive so is opposed to persons who are opposed to transferring wealth.
We can call in states like North and South Dakota and Alaska that tend to use the Federal budget s their personal expense account and make them support themselves.
This will free up biliions of dollars that states can then use as transfers from federal taxes.
For instance, on of the Dakotas had a billion dollar surplus, presumably from a 3 billion dollar federal payment in excess of federal taxes.
This itself will solve most problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137442</id>
	<title>Re:States should fix this in their own laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258462740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_income\_tax" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">My personal preference although I'm sure you've read about it already.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My personal preference although I 'm sure you 've read about it already .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My personal preference although I'm sure you've read about it already.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133642</id>
	<title>dot dot dot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258448460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...", Michael Mazerov stated between bong hits and gargling mouthfulls of jizz.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... " , Michael Mazerov stated between bong hits and gargling mouthfulls of jizz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...", Michael Mazerov stated between bong hits and gargling mouthfulls of jizz.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30149370</id>
	<title>Can't Collect State Taxes...Really?!</title>
	<author>Sarlin</author>
	<datestamp>1257073500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amazon wants us to believe that they are incapable of collecting individual state taxes.  And they want us to trust our data with them with their cloud computing offerings.  If CDW can do it, Amazon can.

On another note, I think we Americans are too heavily taxed already.  That is why the Revolutionary War started (over taxes - without representation).  Now we have much, much higher taxation, but it's OK because our benevolent dicta...leaders are representing us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon wants us to believe that they are incapable of collecting individual state taxes .
And they want us to trust our data with them with their cloud computing offerings .
If CDW can do it , Amazon can .
On another note , I think we Americans are too heavily taxed already .
That is why the Revolutionary War started ( over taxes - without representation ) .
Now we have much , much higher taxation , but it 's OK because our benevolent dicta...leaders are representing us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon wants us to believe that they are incapable of collecting individual state taxes.
And they want us to trust our data with them with their cloud computing offerings.
If CDW can do it, Amazon can.
On another note, I think we Americans are too heavily taxed already.
That is why the Revolutionary War started (over taxes - without representation).
Now we have much, much higher taxation, but it's OK because our benevolent dicta...leaders are representing us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135162</id>
	<title>legality of states regulating inter-state commerce</title>
	<author>PhantomHarlock</author>
	<datestamp>1258453380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What ever happened to that bit about States not being able to tax interstate commerce?  The 'use' tax is simple a loophole for that isn't it?</p><p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/13/amazonlaw-states-rights-oped-cx\_scjw\_0514amazonlaw.html" title="forbes.com">There was that brouhaha with New York a year ago</a> [forbes.com]</p><p>"The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling 16 years ago in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota reaffirmed that a corporation must have a "substantial nexus" with a state in order to be subject to its sales and use taxes. When corporations lack physical presence in a state and rely only on common-carrier contacts or the mail to reach its customers, those corporations do not fall under the requisite "substantial nexus." Nor does a corporation's mere licensing of software to customers in another state fall under this requirement. "</p><p>So why is this even being debated?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ever happened to that bit about States not being able to tax interstate commerce ?
The 'use ' tax is simple a loophole for that is n't it ? There was that brouhaha with New York a year ago [ forbes.com ] " The U.S. Supreme Court 's ruling 16 years ago in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota reaffirmed that a corporation must have a " substantial nexus " with a state in order to be subject to its sales and use taxes .
When corporations lack physical presence in a state and rely only on common-carrier contacts or the mail to reach its customers , those corporations do not fall under the requisite " substantial nexus .
" Nor does a corporation 's mere licensing of software to customers in another state fall under this requirement .
" So why is this even being debated ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What ever happened to that bit about States not being able to tax interstate commerce?
The 'use' tax is simple a loophole for that isn't it?There was that brouhaha with New York a year ago [forbes.com]"The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling 16 years ago in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota reaffirmed that a corporation must have a "substantial nexus" with a state in order to be subject to its sales and use taxes.
When corporations lack physical presence in a state and rely only on common-carrier contacts or the mail to reach its customers, those corporations do not fall under the requisite "substantial nexus.
" Nor does a corporation's mere licensing of software to customers in another state fall under this requirement.
"So why is this even being debated?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135608</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5\%-10\% price advan</title>
	<author>BrianRoach</author>
	<datestamp>1258454820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean the free shipping that most of their items include if they're over $25?</p><p>I've been buying from Amazon for years. We even pay the $80/yr for free 2 day shipping. We come out WAY ahead.</p><p>Or course, even if we were paying the 8\% sales tax, we'd prob still be ahead. Finding anything in our area from a brick and mortar for less than MSRP is a rarity. Hell, for motorcycle and car parts I order from CA, pay the shipping, and STILL save money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the free shipping that most of their items include if they 're over $ 25 ? I 've been buying from Amazon for years .
We even pay the $ 80/yr for free 2 day shipping .
We come out WAY ahead.Or course , even if we were paying the 8 \ % sales tax , we 'd prob still be ahead .
Finding anything in our area from a brick and mortar for less than MSRP is a rarity .
Hell , for motorcycle and car parts I order from CA , pay the shipping , and STILL save money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the free shipping that most of their items include if they're over $25?I've been buying from Amazon for years.
We even pay the $80/yr for free 2 day shipping.
We come out WAY ahead.Or course, even if we were paying the 8\% sales tax, we'd prob still be ahead.
Finding anything in our area from a brick and mortar for less than MSRP is a rarity.
Hell, for motorcycle and car parts I order from CA, pay the shipping, and STILL save money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30143118</id>
	<title>Advantage?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually they don't by the time you add in shipping on most items.  By the time I add shipping to most orders unless I've waited to amass quite an order list that can all be shipped in a single box it ends up costing about the same as going to a b&amp;m and paying sales tax.  (Or at least it applies to most of the books that I would otherwise order from them.  Their electronics &amp; other prices aren't nearly as good as man other e-tailers specializing in those areas for the most part.)</p><p>The reality of the matter for me is that Amazon(or other e-tailers) sometimes will have items that I simply cannot get locally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually they do n't by the time you add in shipping on most items .
By the time I add shipping to most orders unless I 've waited to amass quite an order list that can all be shipped in a single box it ends up costing about the same as going to a b&amp;m and paying sales tax .
( Or at least it applies to most of the books that I would otherwise order from them .
Their electronics &amp; other prices are n't nearly as good as man other e-tailers specializing in those areas for the most part .
) The reality of the matter for me is that Amazon ( or other e-tailers ) sometimes will have items that I simply can not get locally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually they don't by the time you add in shipping on most items.
By the time I add shipping to most orders unless I've waited to amass quite an order list that can all be shipped in a single box it ends up costing about the same as going to a b&amp;m and paying sales tax.
(Or at least it applies to most of the books that I would otherwise order from them.
Their electronics &amp; other prices aren't nearly as good as man other e-tailers specializing in those areas for the most part.
)The reality of the matter for me is that Amazon(or other e-tailers) sometimes will have items that I simply cannot get locally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134650</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1258451760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because we like a villain who we can complain about all of our problems.<br>Companies when they are in a crunch they are in a position to reorganize or die.  The Government doesn't ever reorganize, if they do there is so many people who get pissed off they they don't get elected so they are punished for doing the right thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we like a villain who we can complain about all of our problems.Companies when they are in a crunch they are in a position to reorganize or die .
The Government does n't ever reorganize , if they do there is so many people who get pissed off they they do n't get elected so they are punished for doing the right thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we like a villain who we can complain about all of our problems.Companies when they are in a crunch they are in a position to reorganize or die.
The Government doesn't ever reorganize, if they do there is so many people who get pissed off they they don't get elected so they are punished for doing the right thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138944</id>
	<title>Re:alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258473600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>How about jails?</i> <br>
How about jails?  Legalize and tax drugs, and pardon all non-violent drug offenders, and we would have more tax revenue and less money spent on jails.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about jails ?
How about jails ?
Legalize and tax drugs , and pardon all non-violent drug offenders , and we would have more tax revenue and less money spent on jails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about jails?
How about jails?
Legalize and tax drugs, and pardon all non-violent drug offenders, and we would have more tax revenue and less money spent on jails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134900</id>
	<title>Re:States should fix this in their own laws</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1258452540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this is why in many states, grocery, clothing under $50, outerwear under $150, and common household goods and supplies do not have sales taxes applied.  Only prepared foods, luxuries, and items in certain categories are taxed, greatly limiting the regressive bnature of the tax.  Poor people who rarely eat out and buy cheap household goods at walmart almost never pay sales taxes, while upper class folks pay on almost everything they touch.  Sales taxes are 8-9\% instead of the 6.5 here, and it actually balances in favor of the state with a slight bump in income or property taxes as well.</p><p>Don;t get me wrong, I am in full favor of completely eliminating sales taxes (and the lottery while they're at it), but there are middle grounds that are easier for politicians (and the rich who get them elected) to support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is why in many states , grocery , clothing under $ 50 , outerwear under $ 150 , and common household goods and supplies do not have sales taxes applied .
Only prepared foods , luxuries , and items in certain categories are taxed , greatly limiting the regressive bnature of the tax .
Poor people who rarely eat out and buy cheap household goods at walmart almost never pay sales taxes , while upper class folks pay on almost everything they touch .
Sales taxes are 8-9 \ % instead of the 6.5 here , and it actually balances in favor of the state with a slight bump in income or property taxes as well.Don ; t get me wrong , I am in full favor of completely eliminating sales taxes ( and the lottery while they 're at it ) , but there are middle grounds that are easier for politicians ( and the rich who get them elected ) to support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is why in many states, grocery, clothing under $50, outerwear under $150, and common household goods and supplies do not have sales taxes applied.
Only prepared foods, luxuries, and items in certain categories are taxed, greatly limiting the regressive bnature of the tax.
Poor people who rarely eat out and buy cheap household goods at walmart almost never pay sales taxes, while upper class folks pay on almost everything they touch.
Sales taxes are 8-9\% instead of the 6.5 here, and it actually balances in favor of the state with a slight bump in income or property taxes as well.Don;t get me wrong, I am in full favor of completely eliminating sales taxes (and the lottery while they're at it), but there are middle grounds that are easier for politicians (and the rich who get them elected) to support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134980</id>
	<title>About time for a federal sales tax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258452840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And to abolish the state-level sales tax.</p><p>Then the sticker price can be the real price - like it is in the civilised world.</p><p>I'm sure some states will cry foul because they currently don't have any such tax but times change.</p><p>This will make the life of all retailers (and etailers) much much easier.<br>No more city or county or state sales tax.<br>Just one federal sales tax.</p><p>Yeah, I know, you'll all hate that idea because it means everyone will have to pay sales tax all the time.</p><p>But it is the only way to even out the playing field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And to abolish the state-level sales tax.Then the sticker price can be the real price - like it is in the civilised world.I 'm sure some states will cry foul because they currently do n't have any such tax but times change.This will make the life of all retailers ( and etailers ) much much easier.No more city or county or state sales tax.Just one federal sales tax.Yeah , I know , you 'll all hate that idea because it means everyone will have to pay sales tax all the time.But it is the only way to even out the playing field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And to abolish the state-level sales tax.Then the sticker price can be the real price - like it is in the civilised world.I'm sure some states will cry foul because they currently don't have any such tax but times change.This will make the life of all retailers (and etailers) much much easier.No more city or county or state sales tax.Just one federal sales tax.Yeah, I know, you'll all hate that idea because it means everyone will have to pay sales tax all the time.But it is the only way to even out the playing field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135286</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>japhering</author>
	<datestamp>1258453800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If I go to California to buy something, I have to pay California's taxes and not my own. If I pay someone to go to California to buy something for me, I'd have to pay California's taxes and no my own. But for some bizarre reason, when I pay FedEx to ship it to me, suddenly I do not have to pay California's tax but I have to pay my state's use tax.</p></div></blockquote><p>We have this little thing about being taxed without representation....which is why you pay your home states's sales tax rate.</p><p>Given all the governments in this country that have sales tax jurisdiction and the myriad of rules<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for example,  an orange is typically not taxed in jurisdictions that don't tax food, but 50/50 if a bottle of orange juice is taxed or not taxed.   In Texas,  candy bars are taxed, but chocolate chips are not... the permutations are almost infinite.  The two solutions are getting everyone to agree to the same rules (fat chance) or instituting a flat internet only tax (which the low tax rate states will love as the rate would be higher than theres, and the high tax rate states would hate because it would be lower).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I go to California to buy something , I have to pay California 's taxes and not my own .
If I pay someone to go to California to buy something for me , I 'd have to pay California 's taxes and no my own .
But for some bizarre reason , when I pay FedEx to ship it to me , suddenly I do not have to pay California 's tax but I have to pay my state 's use tax.We have this little thing about being taxed without representation....which is why you pay your home states 's sales tax rate.Given all the governments in this country that have sales tax jurisdiction and the myriad of rules ... for example , an orange is typically not taxed in jurisdictions that do n't tax food , but 50/50 if a bottle of orange juice is taxed or not taxed .
In Texas , candy bars are taxed , but chocolate chips are not... the permutations are almost infinite .
The two solutions are getting everyone to agree to the same rules ( fat chance ) or instituting a flat internet only tax ( which the low tax rate states will love as the rate would be higher than theres , and the high tax rate states would hate because it would be lower ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I go to California to buy something, I have to pay California's taxes and not my own.
If I pay someone to go to California to buy something for me, I'd have to pay California's taxes and no my own.
But for some bizarre reason, when I pay FedEx to ship it to me, suddenly I do not have to pay California's tax but I have to pay my state's use tax.We have this little thing about being taxed without representation....which is why you pay your home states's sales tax rate.Given all the governments in this country that have sales tax jurisdiction and the myriad of rules ... for example,  an orange is typically not taxed in jurisdictions that don't tax food, but 50/50 if a bottle of orange juice is taxed or not taxed.
In Texas,  candy bars are taxed, but chocolate chips are not... the permutations are almost infinite.
The two solutions are getting everyone to agree to the same rules (fat chance) or instituting a flat internet only tax (which the low tax rate states will love as the rate would be higher than theres, and the high tax rate states would hate because it would be lower).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30141660</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257076620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, there is a provision for this.<br>The taxes you pay to that originating State are deducted from the "use tax" you have to pay to the State you live in.</p><p>There's supposedly a form you can fill out with your return to itemize taxes payed out-of-State, with the corresponding deduction from your own State's taxes.</p><p>The end result is...you still pay as much as your State-of-residence requires, regardless of where you buy the item from.</p><p>Not sure if this works with overseas purchases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there is a provision for this.The taxes you pay to that originating State are deducted from the " use tax " you have to pay to the State you live in.There 's supposedly a form you can fill out with your return to itemize taxes payed out-of-State , with the corresponding deduction from your own State 's taxes.The end result is...you still pay as much as your State-of-residence requires , regardless of where you buy the item from.Not sure if this works with overseas purchases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there is a provision for this.The taxes you pay to that originating State are deducted from the "use tax" you have to pay to the State you live in.There's supposedly a form you can fill out with your return to itemize taxes payed out-of-State, with the corresponding deduction from your own State's taxes.The end result is...you still pay as much as your State-of-residence requires, regardless of where you buy the item from.Not sure if this works with overseas purchases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30153168</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, taxes, taxes</title>
	<author>Verity\_Crux</author>
	<datestamp>1257098880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If taxes have to be raised, then raise the income taxes or property taxes. Sales taxes are a pain to collect, and they have a dampening effect on retail businesses. Also, they are skewed against the poor, since poorer people typically must spend a higher percentage of their income on retail goods.</p></div><p>
This is a blatant lie that needs to stop now. Sales taxes are much cheaper to collect than income and property taxes -- there are significantly fewer retail sales points than tax filers currently. Income tax has the same dampening effect on retail business as sales tax if not worse due to the lack of transparency. Sales taxes are not skewed against the poor. There is nothing forcing a poor person to pay a higher percentage of his income on retail goods than a rich person would pay. If sales taxes were fair, as in they applied to new houses and retail services like visiting a doctor, you would see that rich people pay an equal or higher percentage of total sales tax collected.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If taxes have to be raised , then raise the income taxes or property taxes .
Sales taxes are a pain to collect , and they have a dampening effect on retail businesses .
Also , they are skewed against the poor , since poorer people typically must spend a higher percentage of their income on retail goods .
This is a blatant lie that needs to stop now .
Sales taxes are much cheaper to collect than income and property taxes -- there are significantly fewer retail sales points than tax filers currently .
Income tax has the same dampening effect on retail business as sales tax if not worse due to the lack of transparency .
Sales taxes are not skewed against the poor .
There is nothing forcing a poor person to pay a higher percentage of his income on retail goods than a rich person would pay .
If sales taxes were fair , as in they applied to new houses and retail services like visiting a doctor , you would see that rich people pay an equal or higher percentage of total sales tax collected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If taxes have to be raised, then raise the income taxes or property taxes.
Sales taxes are a pain to collect, and they have a dampening effect on retail businesses.
Also, they are skewed against the poor, since poorer people typically must spend a higher percentage of their income on retail goods.
This is a blatant lie that needs to stop now.
Sales taxes are much cheaper to collect than income and property taxes -- there are significantly fewer retail sales points than tax filers currently.
Income tax has the same dampening effect on retail business as sales tax if not worse due to the lack of transparency.
Sales taxes are not skewed against the poor.
There is nothing forcing a poor person to pay a higher percentage of his income on retail goods than a rich person would pay.
If sales taxes were fair, as in they applied to new houses and retail services like visiting a doctor, you would see that rich people pay an equal or higher percentage of total sales tax collected.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134994</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>xkcdFan1011011101111</author>
	<datestamp>1258452900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>mod up!</htmltext>
<tokenext>mod up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mod up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133672</id>
	<title>Legally due</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258448580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it was legally due then states would sue and win. It's not legally due. Yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was legally due then states would sue and win .
It 's not legally due .
Yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was legally due then states would sue and win.
It's not legally due.
Yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134530</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are good...</title>
	<author>cfulmer</author>
	<datestamp>1258451340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that's the point.  Amazon uses services in states where it has operations. Its usage of services in other states is practically non-existent.  Your example of national defense is silly -- that's paid for by the federal government, which Amazon does pay taxes to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's the point .
Amazon uses services in states where it has operations .
Its usage of services in other states is practically non-existent .
Your example of national defense is silly -- that 's paid for by the federal government , which Amazon does pay taxes to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's the point.
Amazon uses services in states where it has operations.
Its usage of services in other states is practically non-existent.
Your example of national defense is silly -- that's paid for by the federal government, which Amazon does pay taxes to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139072</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are good...</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1258474740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, please.  Here, let's take a look at amazon's financial statements: <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AMZN" title="yahoo.com">http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AMZN</a> [yahoo.com]
<p>
61,000Q3  <br>
39,000Q2  <br>
69,000Q1	<br>
80,000 Q4</p><p>
Here's a company that paid <b>250,000,000 dollars in taxes</b> in the last fiscal year (and that's <i>only</i> income tax) -- and you're complaining that they aren't paying their share? How much would you say is "fair" for them to pay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , please .
Here , let 's take a look at amazon 's financial statements : http : //finance.yahoo.com/q/is ? s = AMZN [ yahoo.com ] 61,000Q3 39,000Q2 69,000Q1 80,000 Q4 Here 's a company that paid 250,000,000 dollars in taxes in the last fiscal year ( and that 's only income tax ) -- and you 're complaining that they are n't paying their share ?
How much would you say is " fair " for them to pay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, please.
Here, let's take a look at amazon's financial statements: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AMZN [yahoo.com]

61,000Q3  
39,000Q2  
69,000Q1	
80,000 Q4
Here's a company that paid 250,000,000 dollars in taxes in the last fiscal year (and that's only income tax) -- and you're complaining that they aren't paying their share?
How much would you say is "fair" for them to pay?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30141760</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, taxes, taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257077700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If taxes have to be raised, then raise the income taxes or property taxes.</p></div><p>Not everyone works (or gets paid enough to tax) and definitely, not everyone owns property.<br>But everyone buys SOMETHING....so Sales Tax has a much greater chance to get everyone, there-by getting more money for the Gov.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If taxes have to be raised , then raise the income taxes or property taxes.Not everyone works ( or gets paid enough to tax ) and definitely , not everyone owns property.But everyone buys SOMETHING....so Sales Tax has a much greater chance to get everyone , there-by getting more money for the Gov .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If taxes have to be raised, then raise the income taxes or property taxes.Not everyone works (or gets paid enough to tax) and definitely, not everyone owns property.But everyone buys SOMETHING....so Sales Tax has a much greater chance to get everyone, there-by getting more money for the Gov.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30143372</id>
	<title>Re:legality of states regulating inter-state comme</title>
	<author>markov23</author>
	<datestamp>1257090420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because states are looking for every dime they can get -- and see dollars here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because states are looking for every dime they can get -- and see dollars here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because states are looking for every dime they can get -- and see dollars here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134236</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are good...  They aren't?</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1258450440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Just saying...</i></p><p>What are you saying?</p><p>Taxes are bad?  Okay, let's eliminate  taxes altogether.  No more public safety.  No more road maintenance. No more bridge maintenance.  Oh, and let's not forget the sewage  Those utility bills used to be so much cheaper and more reliable when there was a utility commission.</p><p>Shangri-la!</p><p>Don't back pedal on me and declare some taxes 'good' and other 'bad.'  You suggest all taxes are bad.</p><p>Amazon, and every business like it, endlessly complain that the American business environment is 'hostile' to their growth.  Looking back at the last 15 years, I'd say they got everything they wanted plus more.  And yet, the business environment is more constrained by legislation designed protect companies the size of Amazon.  And yet the crocodile tears keep flowing as companies the size of Amazon ship their work overseas.</p><p>Specifically, codifying State-based tax rates is not rocket science.  Every decent shopping cart can do it and somehow Amazon can't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just saying...What are you saying ? Taxes are bad ?
Okay , let 's eliminate taxes altogether .
No more public safety .
No more road maintenance .
No more bridge maintenance .
Oh , and let 's not forget the sewage Those utility bills used to be so much cheaper and more reliable when there was a utility commission.Shangri-la ! Do n't back pedal on me and declare some taxes 'good ' and other 'bad .
' You suggest all taxes are bad.Amazon , and every business like it , endlessly complain that the American business environment is 'hostile ' to their growth .
Looking back at the last 15 years , I 'd say they got everything they wanted plus more .
And yet , the business environment is more constrained by legislation designed protect companies the size of Amazon .
And yet the crocodile tears keep flowing as companies the size of Amazon ship their work overseas.Specifically , codifying State-based tax rates is not rocket science .
Every decent shopping cart can do it and somehow Amazon ca n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just saying...What are you saying?Taxes are bad?
Okay, let's eliminate  taxes altogether.
No more public safety.
No more road maintenance.
No more bridge maintenance.
Oh, and let's not forget the sewage  Those utility bills used to be so much cheaper and more reliable when there was a utility commission.Shangri-la!Don't back pedal on me and declare some taxes 'good' and other 'bad.
'  You suggest all taxes are bad.Amazon, and every business like it, endlessly complain that the American business environment is 'hostile' to their growth.
Looking back at the last 15 years, I'd say they got everything they wanted plus more.
And yet, the business environment is more constrained by legislation designed protect companies the size of Amazon.
And yet the crocodile tears keep flowing as companies the size of Amazon ship their work overseas.Specifically, codifying State-based tax rates is not rocket science.
Every decent shopping cart can do it and somehow Amazon can't?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134384</id>
	<title>5-10\% advantage .. not that I've seen</title>
	<author>japhering</author>
	<datestamp>1258450920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> By claiming sales-tax immunity, says Mazerov, Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5\%-10\% price advantage over local retailers, while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year."</p></div></blockquote><p>Every time I check Amazon the total price is more expensive than if I drove to the local vendor, purchased and paid the sales tax.  Typically, the reason is the ridiculously high shipping charges.    Typically, in excess of 10\% of the purchase price.   Example,  $22 oven part.. can be had for between $8 and $15 in shipping and handling costs, making it cost from $30 to $37 versus my local cost of $23.82.</p><p>As long as there is a shipping and handling charge, and companies can in force a floor price on their goods,  Amazon will never be cheaper.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By claiming sales-tax immunity , says Mazerov , Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5 \ % -10 \ % price advantage over local retailers , while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year .
" Every time I check Amazon the total price is more expensive than if I drove to the local vendor , purchased and paid the sales tax .
Typically , the reason is the ridiculously high shipping charges .
Typically , in excess of 10 \ % of the purchase price .
Example , $ 22 oven part.. can be had for between $ 8 and $ 15 in shipping and handling costs , making it cost from $ 30 to $ 37 versus my local cost of $ 23.82.As long as there is a shipping and handling charge , and companies can in force a floor price on their goods , Amazon will never be cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> By claiming sales-tax immunity, says Mazerov, Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5\%-10\% price advantage over local retailers, while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year.
"Every time I check Amazon the total price is more expensive than if I drove to the local vendor, purchased and paid the sales tax.
Typically, the reason is the ridiculously high shipping charges.
Typically, in excess of 10\% of the purchase price.
Example,  $22 oven part.. can be had for between $8 and $15 in shipping and handling costs, making it cost from $30 to $37 versus my local cost of $23.82.As long as there is a shipping and handling charge, and companies can in force a floor price on their goods,  Amazon will never be cheaper.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136614</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258458900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If I go to California to buy something, I have to pay California's taxes and not my own.</i></p><p>If you go to Washington (the State, not the city), you can ask the cashier to ring you up as tax exempt, as you're not a resident of the state. I used to work in an OfficeMax years ago, and we often had people from other states (and Canada) request that.</p><p>You say this as if it's universally true, but that's just one more aspect of the complexity of tax laws most posts in this thread are about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I go to California to buy something , I have to pay California 's taxes and not my own.If you go to Washington ( the State , not the city ) , you can ask the cashier to ring you up as tax exempt , as you 're not a resident of the state .
I used to work in an OfficeMax years ago , and we often had people from other states ( and Canada ) request that.You say this as if it 's universally true , but that 's just one more aspect of the complexity of tax laws most posts in this thread are about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I go to California to buy something, I have to pay California's taxes and not my own.If you go to Washington (the State, not the city), you can ask the cashier to ring you up as tax exempt, as you're not a resident of the state.
I used to work in an OfficeMax years ago, and we often had people from other states (and Canada) request that.You say this as if it's universally true, but that's just one more aspect of the complexity of tax laws most posts in this thread are about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135540</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258454640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The better question should be - why is the Internet any different from traditional mail-order? I don't see a huge rush to make all the other mail-order outfits pay taxes where they don't have a presence. Just because there's a "series of tubes" involved shouldn't change things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The better question should be - why is the Internet any different from traditional mail-order ?
I do n't see a huge rush to make all the other mail-order outfits pay taxes where they do n't have a presence .
Just because there 's a " series of tubes " involved should n't change things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The better question should be - why is the Internet any different from traditional mail-order?
I don't see a huge rush to make all the other mail-order outfits pay taxes where they don't have a presence.
Just because there's a "series of tubes" involved shouldn't change things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134300</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258450620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Newegg actually only charges sales tax in the states that it has shipping warehouses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newegg actually only charges sales tax in the states that it has shipping warehouses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newegg actually only charges sales tax in the states that it has shipping warehouses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138252</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, taxes, taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258467960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These states are exceptions.  Alaska and Montana have miniscule populations and in Alaska's case they tax everyone of their citizens when the tax the oil that comes from the north slope that then gets turned into gasoline.  It will be interesting to see how this holds up when the north slope oil runs out.  In the other states you cite I guarantee you that there is some other type of tax that takes the place of sale tax.  Property taxes, car taxes/tags (Delaware), income tax, something takes it's place.  I guess the upshot is that the state will get it's money from somewhere.  Oh, I just unforgot Delaware taxes just about every large corporation in the country due to their VERY favorable incorporation laws. See: http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amazon/amazonmerger.html to see where Amazon is incorporated (hint it ain't Washington any more and hasn't been since 1996).   Remember corporations don't pay taxes their customers (that would be you and I) do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These states are exceptions .
Alaska and Montana have miniscule populations and in Alaska 's case they tax everyone of their citizens when the tax the oil that comes from the north slope that then gets turned into gasoline .
It will be interesting to see how this holds up when the north slope oil runs out .
In the other states you cite I guarantee you that there is some other type of tax that takes the place of sale tax .
Property taxes , car taxes/tags ( Delaware ) , income tax , something takes it 's place .
I guess the upshot is that the state will get it 's money from somewhere .
Oh , I just unforgot Delaware taxes just about every large corporation in the country due to their VERY favorable incorporation laws .
See : http : //contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amazon/amazonmerger.html to see where Amazon is incorporated ( hint it ai n't Washington any more and has n't been since 1996 ) .
Remember corporations do n't pay taxes their customers ( that would be you and I ) do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These states are exceptions.
Alaska and Montana have miniscule populations and in Alaska's case they tax everyone of their citizens when the tax the oil that comes from the north slope that then gets turned into gasoline.
It will be interesting to see how this holds up when the north slope oil runs out.
In the other states you cite I guarantee you that there is some other type of tax that takes the place of sale tax.
Property taxes, car taxes/tags (Delaware), income tax, something takes it's place.
I guess the upshot is that the state will get it's money from somewhere.
Oh, I just unforgot Delaware taxes just about every large corporation in the country due to their VERY favorable incorporation laws.
See: http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amazon/amazonmerger.html to see where Amazon is incorporated (hint it ain't Washington any more and hasn't been since 1996).
Remember corporations don't pay taxes their customers (that would be you and I) do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134760</id>
	<title>I call B.S. on sales tax...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258452060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All sales tax, income tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, death tax - all are completely illegal, yet we stand by with our wallets open handing the government money, which then hands it to dead-beats who choose not to work, or corporations which either don't pay taxes, or hand over the costs of said taxes to the consumers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All sales tax , income tax , inheritance tax , gift tax , death tax - all are completely illegal , yet we stand by with our wallets open handing the government money , which then hands it to dead-beats who choose not to work , or corporations which either do n't pay taxes , or hand over the costs of said taxes to the consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All sales tax, income tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, death tax - all are completely illegal, yet we stand by with our wallets open handing the government money, which then hands it to dead-beats who choose not to work, or corporations which either don't pay taxes, or hand over the costs of said taxes to the consumers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135622</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are good...</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1258454880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sales Tax is not a liability of the seller, it is a liability of the purchaser/buyer/user.</p><p>True, many states require companies with a physical business presence within their borders to collect the amount and forward it to the state, but the company is not "paying" Sales Tax, they are collecting it.  The buyer is ultimately responsible for paying Sales Tax.  If the buyer chooses a business that does not collect Sales Tax for their state, they are still responsible for determining and paying the appropriate Sales Tax to their state.  This is commonly referred to as "Use Tax" and the fact that it's largely ignored does not make Amazon liable for their customers breaking the tax laws of their home states.</p><p>Amazon pays their share of "state-provided infrastructure" through property and municipal business taxes, and "national defense" through federal business taxes.  If they have no presence in a state, they don't owe that state squat.  Some of their customers might.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sales Tax is not a liability of the seller , it is a liability of the purchaser/buyer/user.True , many states require companies with a physical business presence within their borders to collect the amount and forward it to the state , but the company is not " paying " Sales Tax , they are collecting it .
The buyer is ultimately responsible for paying Sales Tax .
If the buyer chooses a business that does not collect Sales Tax for their state , they are still responsible for determining and paying the appropriate Sales Tax to their state .
This is commonly referred to as " Use Tax " and the fact that it 's largely ignored does not make Amazon liable for their customers breaking the tax laws of their home states.Amazon pays their share of " state-provided infrastructure " through property and municipal business taxes , and " national defense " through federal business taxes .
If they have no presence in a state , they do n't owe that state squat .
Some of their customers might .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sales Tax is not a liability of the seller, it is a liability of the purchaser/buyer/user.True, many states require companies with a physical business presence within their borders to collect the amount and forward it to the state, but the company is not "paying" Sales Tax, they are collecting it.
The buyer is ultimately responsible for paying Sales Tax.
If the buyer chooses a business that does not collect Sales Tax for their state, they are still responsible for determining and paying the appropriate Sales Tax to their state.
This is commonly referred to as "Use Tax" and the fact that it's largely ignored does not make Amazon liable for their customers breaking the tax laws of their home states.Amazon pays their share of "state-provided infrastructure" through property and municipal business taxes, and "national defense" through federal business taxes.
If they have no presence in a state, they don't owe that state squat.
Some of their customers might.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134324</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are good...</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1258450680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, this is one of those summaries which contains the salient points and enough details that I can decide whether to wade through a fairly dense and thoroughly footnoted document.  So we can at least say thanks for choosing something reasonable from the firehose, rather than a garbled mess of TLAs and obscure terms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , this is one of those summaries which contains the salient points and enough details that I can decide whether to wade through a fairly dense and thoroughly footnoted document .
So we can at least say thanks for choosing something reasonable from the firehose , rather than a garbled mess of TLAs and obscure terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, this is one of those summaries which contains the salient points and enough details that I can decide whether to wade through a fairly dense and thoroughly footnoted document.
So we can at least say thanks for choosing something reasonable from the firehose, rather than a garbled mess of TLAs and obscure terms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136634</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, taxes, taxes</title>
	<author>unjedai</author>
	<datestamp>1258458960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If taxes have to be raised, then raise the income taxes or property taxes. Sales taxes are a pain to collect...</p></div><p>Seems to me income taxes are WAY more complicated and full of loopholes than sales taxes are - at least for a brick and mortar. But on a national scale, with internet stores, sales tax becomes difficult. We are one nation - we need a national solution for sales tax.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If taxes have to be raised , then raise the income taxes or property taxes .
Sales taxes are a pain to collect...Seems to me income taxes are WAY more complicated and full of loopholes than sales taxes are - at least for a brick and mortar .
But on a national scale , with internet stores , sales tax becomes difficult .
We are one nation - we need a national solution for sales tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If taxes have to be raised, then raise the income taxes or property taxes.
Sales taxes are a pain to collect...Seems to me income taxes are WAY more complicated and full of loopholes than sales taxes are - at least for a brick and mortar.
But on a national scale, with internet stores, sales tax becomes difficult.
We are one nation - we need a national solution for sales tax.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135738</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258455300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You shouldn't have to pay ANY tax on an item that is shipped interstate because that disincentivizes online retailing, which reduces the competitiveness of e-tailers, which makes it much harder for them to compete, which sets us back to the model of brick and mortar.</p><p>The brick and mortar store experience is characterized by these lovely traits:</p><p>- Non-competitive, localized prices<br>- Unnecessary car rides<br>- Poor selection, or NO selection<br>- Wandering around a store that is not computer searchable<br>- No crowdsourcing or customer reviews available<br>- Waiting in lines to buy things</p><p>Go ahead, hit the e-tailers with the double whammy of shipping AND sales TAX.<br>We will ALL suffer for it as consumers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should n't have to pay ANY tax on an item that is shipped interstate because that disincentivizes online retailing , which reduces the competitiveness of e-tailers , which makes it much harder for them to compete , which sets us back to the model of brick and mortar.The brick and mortar store experience is characterized by these lovely traits : - Non-competitive , localized prices- Unnecessary car rides- Poor selection , or NO selection- Wandering around a store that is not computer searchable- No crowdsourcing or customer reviews available- Waiting in lines to buy thingsGo ahead , hit the e-tailers with the double whammy of shipping AND sales TAX.We will ALL suffer for it as consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You shouldn't have to pay ANY tax on an item that is shipped interstate because that disincentivizes online retailing, which reduces the competitiveness of e-tailers, which makes it much harder for them to compete, which sets us back to the model of brick and mortar.The brick and mortar store experience is characterized by these lovely traits:- Non-competitive, localized prices- Unnecessary car rides- Poor selection, or NO selection- Wandering around a store that is not computer searchable- No crowdsourcing or customer reviews available- Waiting in lines to buy thingsGo ahead, hit the e-tailers with the double whammy of shipping AND sales TAX.We will ALL suffer for it as consumers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133648</id>
	<title>Still charging it in WA...</title>
	<author>ap0</author>
	<datestamp>1258448460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a resident of Washington (where they're headquartered), I can say that a lot of times I choose other retailers over Amazon because Amazon does charge sales tax for me.  I go to Newegg a lot because they don't charge sales tax since they're in CA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a resident of Washington ( where they 're headquartered ) , I can say that a lot of times I choose other retailers over Amazon because Amazon does charge sales tax for me .
I go to Newegg a lot because they do n't charge sales tax since they 're in CA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a resident of Washington (where they're headquartered), I can say that a lot of times I choose other retailers over Amazon because Amazon does charge sales tax for me.
I go to Newegg a lot because they don't charge sales tax since they're in CA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135168</id>
	<title>Re:alternative</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1258453440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure.  Lets start with the <a href="http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm" title="warresisters.org">defense budget</a> [warresisters.org].  Agreed?</p><p>-chirp- -chirp-</p><p>Amazing how quickly the anti-tax activists shut up when it comes to military spending.  Where were all those tea-party protesters when we committed to spend a trillion dollars in two wars?</p><p>If there's a bi-partisan issue anywhere, this should be it.  The left hates war.  The right hates taxes.  Can't we just work together and fix both of our problems?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
Lets start with the defense budget [ warresisters.org ] .
Agreed ? -chirp- -chirp-Amazing how quickly the anti-tax activists shut up when it comes to military spending .
Where were all those tea-party protesters when we committed to spend a trillion dollars in two wars ? If there 's a bi-partisan issue anywhere , this should be it .
The left hates war .
The right hates taxes .
Ca n't we just work together and fix both of our problems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
Lets start with the defense budget [warresisters.org].
Agreed?-chirp- -chirp-Amazing how quickly the anti-tax activists shut up when it comes to military spending.
Where were all those tea-party protesters when we committed to spend a trillion dollars in two wars?If there's a bi-partisan issue anywhere, this should be it.
The left hates war.
The right hates taxes.
Can't we just work together and fix both of our problems?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135508</id>
	<title>Re:States should fix this in their own laws</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1258454520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sales tax is unfair because it's a regressive tax.</i></p><p>Also a sales tax inhibits economic activity with a artificial and arbitrary price addition.</p><p>Though it can at times be a inflation sink as it encourages people to not spend money, but then you end up with a deflationary death spiral.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sales tax is unfair because it 's a regressive tax.Also a sales tax inhibits economic activity with a artificial and arbitrary price addition.Though it can at times be a inflation sink as it encourages people to not spend money , but then you end up with a deflationary death spiral .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sales tax is unfair because it's a regressive tax.Also a sales tax inhibits economic activity with a artificial and arbitrary price addition.Though it can at times be a inflation sink as it encourages people to not spend money, but then you end up with a deflationary death spiral.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134908</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258452600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did pay sales tax on the last two computers I bought from Dell, eldavojohn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did pay sales tax on the last two computers I bought from Dell , eldavojohn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did pay sales tax on the last two computers I bought from Dell, eldavojohn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134480</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, taxes, taxes</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1258451220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be illegal.  The Commerce clause forbids states from charging any kind of tarrif on goods imported from another state.  No sales tax + a use tax would be just that.  Orignally, use taxes where higher, but the courts ruled that they violated the Commerce clause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be illegal .
The Commerce clause forbids states from charging any kind of tarrif on goods imported from another state .
No sales tax + a use tax would be just that .
Orignally , use taxes where higher , but the courts ruled that they violated the Commerce clause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be illegal.
The Commerce clause forbids states from charging any kind of tarrif on goods imported from another state.
No sales tax + a use tax would be just that.
Orignally, use taxes where higher, but the courts ruled that they violated the Commerce clause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134516</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, taxes, taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258451340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, and where my grandmother lives in Oregon, that lack of sales taxes resulted in <i>the end of library service</i>.  For the whole county!  The nearest fire department for many county residents is fifty miles away!</p><p>Taxes pay for very important things.  It'd be a disaster if we didn't have them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and where my grandmother lives in Oregon , that lack of sales taxes resulted in the end of library service .
For the whole county !
The nearest fire department for many county residents is fifty miles away ! Taxes pay for very important things .
It 'd be a disaster if we did n't have them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and where my grandmother lives in Oregon, that lack of sales taxes resulted in the end of library service.
For the whole county!
The nearest fire department for many county residents is fifty miles away!Taxes pay for very important things.
It'd be a disaster if we didn't have them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134780</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258452180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But for some bizarre reason, when I pay FedEx to ship it to me, suddenly I do not have to pay California's tax but I have to pay my state's use tax.</i></p><p>Bizarre? Not at all. The US Constitution says that states have to recognize each others' laws, and can't tax each others' citizens.</p><p>That's it, that's all. QED.</p><p>Incidentally, this has been going on for centuries with mail order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But for some bizarre reason , when I pay FedEx to ship it to me , suddenly I do not have to pay California 's tax but I have to pay my state 's use tax.Bizarre ?
Not at all .
The US Constitution says that states have to recognize each others ' laws , and ca n't tax each others ' citizens.That 's it , that 's all .
QED.Incidentally , this has been going on for centuries with mail order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But for some bizarre reason, when I pay FedEx to ship it to me, suddenly I do not have to pay California's tax but I have to pay my state's use tax.Bizarre?
Not at all.
The US Constitution says that states have to recognize each others' laws, and can't tax each others' citizens.That's it, that's all.
QED.Incidentally, this has been going on for centuries with mail order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135652</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1258454940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If I go to California to buy something, I have to pay California's taxes and not my own.  If I pay someone to go to California to buy something for me, I'd have to pay California's taxes and no my own.</p></div></blockquote><p>That may be true of California, but it's not universally true across the entire country.  Buy something in Washington that you'll be taking back to another state and you don't pay Washington taxes at all.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>Here's why states hate this idea.</p></div></blockquote><p>Um, I don't know where you've been - but the states <i>love</i> the idea of being able to tax Amazon and other internet retailers.  They want to tax goods shipped to their state and and force Amazon to collect the revenue for them, but are currently unable to do so because of the Federal ban on doing so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I go to California to buy something , I have to pay California 's taxes and not my own .
If I pay someone to go to California to buy something for me , I 'd have to pay California 's taxes and no my own.That may be true of California , but it 's not universally true across the entire country .
Buy something in Washington that you 'll be taking back to another state and you do n't pay Washington taxes at all .
  Here 's why states hate this idea.Um , I do n't know where you 've been - but the states love the idea of being able to tax Amazon and other internet retailers .
They want to tax goods shipped to their state and and force Amazon to collect the revenue for them , but are currently unable to do so because of the Federal ban on doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I go to California to buy something, I have to pay California's taxes and not my own.
If I pay someone to go to California to buy something for me, I'd have to pay California's taxes and no my own.That may be true of California, but it's not universally true across the entire country.
Buy something in Washington that you'll be taking back to another state and you don't pay Washington taxes at all.
  Here's why states hate this idea.Um, I don't know where you've been - but the states love the idea of being able to tax Amazon and other internet retailers.
They want to tax goods shipped to their state and and force Amazon to collect the revenue for them, but are currently unable to do so because of the Federal ban on doing so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139138</id>
	<title>Re:alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea Water clean your Own.<br>Roads who needs them it's the 21st century we have flying cars.<br>Army don't need it 2nd Amendment again.<br>Schools? Home learning</p><p>The Beast won't starve because it is us asking for stuff.  Then blaming the politicians for high taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea Water clean your Own.Roads who needs them it 's the 21st century we have flying cars.Army do n't need it 2nd Amendment again.Schools ?
Home learningThe Beast wo n't starve because it is us asking for stuff .
Then blaming the politicians for high taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea Water clean your Own.Roads who needs them it's the 21st century we have flying cars.Army don't need it 2nd Amendment again.Schools?
Home learningThe Beast won't starve because it is us asking for stuff.
Then blaming the politicians for high taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722</id>
	<title>alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258448700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to propose an alternate solution</p><p>I know, most politicians won't go with it, but here it is: How about cutting spending, not only making the additional revenue unnecessary, but enabling the cutting or even elimination of many taxes and "user fees?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to propose an alternate solutionI know , most politicians wo n't go with it , but here it is : How about cutting spending , not only making the additional revenue unnecessary , but enabling the cutting or even elimination of many taxes and " user fees ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to propose an alternate solutionI know, most politicians won't go with it, but here it is: How about cutting spending, not only making the additional revenue unnecessary, but enabling the cutting or even elimination of many taxes and "user fees?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135176</id>
	<title>Re:States should fix this in their own laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258453440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, Elbereth forbid someone makes more money than you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Elbereth forbid someone makes more money than you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Elbereth forbid someone makes more money than you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134448</id>
	<title>Simplify</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258451100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Charge a single tax rate for all on-line purchases and pay each state based on the amount sold to that state.</p><p>That removes the issue of constantly varying tax rates.  All Amazon has to do is classify each sell based on the state the item was shipped too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charge a single tax rate for all on-line purchases and pay each state based on the amount sold to that state.That removes the issue of constantly varying tax rates .
All Amazon has to do is classify each sell based on the state the item was shipped too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charge a single tax rate for all on-line purchases and pay each state based on the amount sold to that state.That removes the issue of constantly varying tax rates.
All Amazon has to do is classify each sell based on the state the item was shipped too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135834</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>TheTrollToll</author>
	<datestamp>1258455660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oregon is definitely not on the list of best places to bring or start a company despite their lack of sales tax.  Unless you are a  "green company" then they'll just hand you 40 million dollars to start a manufacturing facility because that's how they work.

<a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/11/sanyo\_solar\_plant\_opens\_with\_o.html" title="oregonlive.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/11/sanyo\_solar\_plant\_opens\_with\_o.html</a> [oregonlive.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oregon is definitely not on the list of best places to bring or start a company despite their lack of sales tax .
Unless you are a " green company " then they 'll just hand you 40 million dollars to start a manufacturing facility because that 's how they work .
http : //www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/11/sanyo \ _solar \ _plant \ _opens \ _with \ _o.html [ oregonlive.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oregon is definitely not on the list of best places to bring or start a company despite their lack of sales tax.
Unless you are a  "green company" then they'll just hand you 40 million dollars to start a manufacturing facility because that's how they work.
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/11/sanyo\_solar\_plant\_opens\_with\_o.html [oregonlive.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134790</id>
	<title>Re:Legally due</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1258452180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is my understanding as well.</p><p>The states are due the tax, but it's their citizens that owe it to the state.</p><p>The states are whining, but really, the states aren't doing what they are supposed to do, which is harmonize what is taxed and not taxed.  Only after they do that can they be allowed to make demands of internet retailers.  There may be other stipulations, but that's the big one that the states can't complete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is my understanding as well.The states are due the tax , but it 's their citizens that owe it to the state.The states are whining , but really , the states are n't doing what they are supposed to do , which is harmonize what is taxed and not taxed .
Only after they do that can they be allowed to make demands of internet retailers .
There may be other stipulations , but that 's the big one that the states ca n't complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is my understanding as well.The states are due the tax, but it's their citizens that owe it to the state.The states are whining, but really, the states aren't doing what they are supposed to do, which is harmonize what is taxed and not taxed.
Only after they do that can they be allowed to make demands of internet retailers.
There may be other stipulations, but that's the big one that the states can't complete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134126</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1258450080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Dell sells (sold) mostly computers. Amazon sells just about anything.</p><p>Some states tax clothes. Some states don't. Some tax some sorts of foods and not others. A state may not tax something but a municipality or county within that state may.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Dell sells ( sold ) mostly computers .
Amazon sells just about anything.Some states tax clothes .
Some states do n't .
Some tax some sorts of foods and not others .
A state may not tax something but a municipality or county within that state may .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Dell sells (sold) mostly computers.
Amazon sells just about anything.Some states tax clothes.
Some states don't.
Some tax some sorts of foods and not others.
A state may not tax something but a municipality or county within that state may.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136836</id>
	<title>I like it how it is</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1258459920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Amazon doesn't reside in my state then they shouldn't be asking me for tax money. If the government thinks I'd pay Use tax well then they're having a laugh because that's not happening. It's always been this way and I see no reason to change it.
<br> <br>
As far as local businesses, they don't charge shipping or make you wait ages to get something for free shipping so they have their own competitive edge too. The problem is most don't want to work for the business. They prefer it when they're your only option and they can fuck you over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Amazon does n't reside in my state then they should n't be asking me for tax money .
If the government thinks I 'd pay Use tax well then they 're having a laugh because that 's not happening .
It 's always been this way and I see no reason to change it .
As far as local businesses , they do n't charge shipping or make you wait ages to get something for free shipping so they have their own competitive edge too .
The problem is most do n't want to work for the business .
They prefer it when they 're your only option and they can fuck you over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Amazon doesn't reside in my state then they shouldn't be asking me for tax money.
If the government thinks I'd pay Use tax well then they're having a laugh because that's not happening.
It's always been this way and I see no reason to change it.
As far as local businesses, they don't charge shipping or make you wait ages to get something for free shipping so they have their own competitive edge too.
The problem is most don't want to work for the business.
They prefer it when they're your only option and they can fuck you over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135186</id>
	<title>taxes are NOT revenue</title>
	<author>xzvf</author>
	<datestamp>1258453500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ability to tax, while necessary, is not a revenue generating act.  Taxes reduce revenue generated by the citizens of a political entity.  Taxes are a burden and reduce the ability reinvest and gain more revenue.  While, citizens using a government to provide basic services, by presenting a non-voluntary tithe, is legitimate, in no way should taxes be considered revenue.  It was not earned, it was seized.

I understand the need for taxation.  I just want government employees to realize they are taking my money against my will, and not earning my money with their good works.  I don't pay for the police or fire department to show up at my door when I call, I don't pay for the roads and airports, health inspections, or supporting welfare moms.  A percentage of my income is seized so my elected representatives can be good stewards and provide required services.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ability to tax , while necessary , is not a revenue generating act .
Taxes reduce revenue generated by the citizens of a political entity .
Taxes are a burden and reduce the ability reinvest and gain more revenue .
While , citizens using a government to provide basic services , by presenting a non-voluntary tithe , is legitimate , in no way should taxes be considered revenue .
It was not earned , it was seized .
I understand the need for taxation .
I just want government employees to realize they are taking my money against my will , and not earning my money with their good works .
I do n't pay for the police or fire department to show up at my door when I call , I do n't pay for the roads and airports , health inspections , or supporting welfare moms .
A percentage of my income is seized so my elected representatives can be good stewards and provide required services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ability to tax, while necessary, is not a revenue generating act.
Taxes reduce revenue generated by the citizens of a political entity.
Taxes are a burden and reduce the ability reinvest and gain more revenue.
While, citizens using a government to provide basic services, by presenting a non-voluntary tithe, is legitimate, in no way should taxes be considered revenue.
It was not earned, it was seized.
I understand the need for taxation.
I just want government employees to realize they are taking my money against my will, and not earning my money with their good works.
I don't pay for the police or fire department to show up at my door when I call, I don't pay for the roads and airports, health inspections, or supporting welfare moms.
A percentage of my income is seized so my elected representatives can be good stewards and provide required services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133970</id>
	<title>There are numerous problems.</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1258449540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first is the nature of how sales tax exists. It is a tax on the customer collected by the merchant. That's an idea that works fine with brick-and-morter: but it is very odd to do mail-order.</p><p>Also, despite the fact that sales tax is on the customer, and therefore in the customer's state: many states want to charge sales tax when the merchant is in their state as well, potentially double-taxing a sale.</p><p>But a bigger problem exists with non-state sales tax. If Pinellas county, or worse Kenneth City, FL pass a 1\% sales tax: they don't exactly rush out to tell Amazon. It's simple enough for brick-and-morter to keep track of the taxes where they are, but to keep track of every state, county, and municipality in the US would indeed be burdensome.</p><p>We need to go back and redesign, among other things, the entire concept of sales tax to work in the modern economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first is the nature of how sales tax exists .
It is a tax on the customer collected by the merchant .
That 's an idea that works fine with brick-and-morter : but it is very odd to do mail-order.Also , despite the fact that sales tax is on the customer , and therefore in the customer 's state : many states want to charge sales tax when the merchant is in their state as well , potentially double-taxing a sale.But a bigger problem exists with non-state sales tax .
If Pinellas county , or worse Kenneth City , FL pass a 1 \ % sales tax : they do n't exactly rush out to tell Amazon .
It 's simple enough for brick-and-morter to keep track of the taxes where they are , but to keep track of every state , county , and municipality in the US would indeed be burdensome.We need to go back and redesign , among other things , the entire concept of sales tax to work in the modern economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first is the nature of how sales tax exists.
It is a tax on the customer collected by the merchant.
That's an idea that works fine with brick-and-morter: but it is very odd to do mail-order.Also, despite the fact that sales tax is on the customer, and therefore in the customer's state: many states want to charge sales tax when the merchant is in their state as well, potentially double-taxing a sale.But a bigger problem exists with non-state sales tax.
If Pinellas county, or worse Kenneth City, FL pass a 1\% sales tax: they don't exactly rush out to tell Amazon.
It's simple enough for brick-and-morter to keep track of the taxes where they are, but to keep track of every state, county, and municipality in the US would indeed be burdensome.We need to go back and redesign, among other things, the entire concept of sales tax to work in the modern economy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136980</id>
	<title>This is actually very simple</title>
	<author>sycomonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1258460520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amazon is based in Seattle, Washington.

Purchases made in Washington should be subject to Washington sales tax. (I live in Washington, so this sucks for me, but whatever)

Purchases not made in Washington should NOT be subject to any sales tax.

It really pisses me off when companies who are not based in this state charge local sales tax for online purchases.  Music off the iTunes store, for example, will charge me sales tax, even though Apple is based in California.  That's just wrong.

The way I see it, having a physical presence should only matter if you physically go there and physically purchase a physical item.

Online purchases usually are subject to shipping charges, adding sales tax that shouldn't apply in the first place just makes online purchases that much more expensive than they should be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon is based in Seattle , Washington .
Purchases made in Washington should be subject to Washington sales tax .
( I live in Washington , so this sucks for me , but whatever ) Purchases not made in Washington should NOT be subject to any sales tax .
It really pisses me off when companies who are not based in this state charge local sales tax for online purchases .
Music off the iTunes store , for example , will charge me sales tax , even though Apple is based in California .
That 's just wrong .
The way I see it , having a physical presence should only matter if you physically go there and physically purchase a physical item .
Online purchases usually are subject to shipping charges , adding sales tax that should n't apply in the first place just makes online purchases that much more expensive than they should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon is based in Seattle, Washington.
Purchases made in Washington should be subject to Washington sales tax.
(I live in Washington, so this sucks for me, but whatever)

Purchases not made in Washington should NOT be subject to any sales tax.
It really pisses me off when companies who are not based in this state charge local sales tax for online purchases.
Music off the iTunes store, for example, will charge me sales tax, even though Apple is based in California.
That's just wrong.
The way I see it, having a physical presence should only matter if you physically go there and physically purchase a physical item.
Online purchases usually are subject to shipping charges, adding sales tax that shouldn't apply in the first place just makes online purchases that much more expensive than they should be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134608</id>
	<title>Lots of off-point arguments</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1258451580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know; I suppose you could argue for changing the rules on when a company has to collect sales tax to include (1) being in-state, or (2) having a business partner for whom you calculate in-state tax.  What I don't think you can argue for is singling Amazon out and treating it differently from the general rule.  If the rule is that it's presumed too burdensome for an out-of-state business to collect sales tax, then that's that.</p><p>Hell, let the states set up online services for state tax calculation and just require any business making a sale to use that service to calculate tax; then it's not an undue burden for anyone and you can do away with unenforcable use taxes entirely.</p><p>The argument about benefit from public services seems off to me; at most it would convince me that Amazon should pay <i>in the 17 states where it is present</i>, yet TFA seems to imply that because Amazon's argument is "disingenuous" that somehow supports the idea that they shoudl pay in all 50.  A better counter is that the point is moot.  If we want to talk about what the state is "giving" the company in exchange for the service of collecting taxes... how about access to the consumer market in that state?  That seems like a fair deal; after all, what the company gains by not collecting the tax isn't the ability to legally sell at a lower price; it's the ability to give customers the opportunity to evade the tax.  "If you're going to encourage law-breaking in our state, you can't do business here" wouldn't offend me one bit.</p><p>But this business about Amazon's motive for arguing the point... what difference does that make?  Either the reason they give is a valid reason or it isn't a valid reason; whether it's the reason that motivates Amazon simply doesn't matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know ; I suppose you could argue for changing the rules on when a company has to collect sales tax to include ( 1 ) being in-state , or ( 2 ) having a business partner for whom you calculate in-state tax .
What I do n't think you can argue for is singling Amazon out and treating it differently from the general rule .
If the rule is that it 's presumed too burdensome for an out-of-state business to collect sales tax , then that 's that.Hell , let the states set up online services for state tax calculation and just require any business making a sale to use that service to calculate tax ; then it 's not an undue burden for anyone and you can do away with unenforcable use taxes entirely.The argument about benefit from public services seems off to me ; at most it would convince me that Amazon should pay in the 17 states where it is present , yet TFA seems to imply that because Amazon 's argument is " disingenuous " that somehow supports the idea that they shoudl pay in all 50 .
A better counter is that the point is moot .
If we want to talk about what the state is " giving " the company in exchange for the service of collecting taxes... how about access to the consumer market in that state ?
That seems like a fair deal ; after all , what the company gains by not collecting the tax is n't the ability to legally sell at a lower price ; it 's the ability to give customers the opportunity to evade the tax .
" If you 're going to encourage law-breaking in our state , you ca n't do business here " would n't offend me one bit.But this business about Amazon 's motive for arguing the point... what difference does that make ?
Either the reason they give is a valid reason or it is n't a valid reason ; whether it 's the reason that motivates Amazon simply does n't matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know; I suppose you could argue for changing the rules on when a company has to collect sales tax to include (1) being in-state, or (2) having a business partner for whom you calculate in-state tax.
What I don't think you can argue for is singling Amazon out and treating it differently from the general rule.
If the rule is that it's presumed too burdensome for an out-of-state business to collect sales tax, then that's that.Hell, let the states set up online services for state tax calculation and just require any business making a sale to use that service to calculate tax; then it's not an undue burden for anyone and you can do away with unenforcable use taxes entirely.The argument about benefit from public services seems off to me; at most it would convince me that Amazon should pay in the 17 states where it is present, yet TFA seems to imply that because Amazon's argument is "disingenuous" that somehow supports the idea that they shoudl pay in all 50.
A better counter is that the point is moot.
If we want to talk about what the state is "giving" the company in exchange for the service of collecting taxes... how about access to the consumer market in that state?
That seems like a fair deal; after all, what the company gains by not collecting the tax isn't the ability to legally sell at a lower price; it's the ability to give customers the opportunity to evade the tax.
"If you're going to encourage law-breaking in our state, you can't do business here" wouldn't offend me one bit.But this business about Amazon's motive for arguing the point... what difference does that make?
Either the reason they give is a valid reason or it isn't a valid reason; whether it's the reason that motivates Amazon simply doesn't matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30141704</id>
	<title>Fuck the sales tax</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1257077100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Simple, just abolish the sales tax. It's kind of stupid anyway. <i>Income</i> should be taxed, instead. If someone has more income, he'll buy more stuff so tax his income and sales tax is useless. If a company sells a lot, it has more income. Tax the income instead of the sales. The net result is the same with a lot less red tape.
</p><p>
Sales tax is an invitation to fraud. In my country it's usual for contractors to offer two prices, one with a receipt including sales tax and another without receipt, without sales tax. This is illegal, of course, but it's common practice. Abolish sales tax and it's over.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple , just abolish the sales tax .
It 's kind of stupid anyway .
Income should be taxed , instead .
If someone has more income , he 'll buy more stuff so tax his income and sales tax is useless .
If a company sells a lot , it has more income .
Tax the income instead of the sales .
The net result is the same with a lot less red tape .
Sales tax is an invitation to fraud .
In my country it 's usual for contractors to offer two prices , one with a receipt including sales tax and another without receipt , without sales tax .
This is illegal , of course , but it 's common practice .
Abolish sales tax and it 's over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Simple, just abolish the sales tax.
It's kind of stupid anyway.
Income should be taxed, instead.
If someone has more income, he'll buy more stuff so tax his income and sales tax is useless.
If a company sells a lot, it has more income.
Tax the income instead of the sales.
The net result is the same with a lot less red tape.
Sales tax is an invitation to fraud.
In my country it's usual for contractors to offer two prices, one with a receipt including sales tax and another without receipt, without sales tax.
This is illegal, of course, but it's common practice.
Abolish sales tax and it's over.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135944</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, taxes, taxes</title>
	<author>japhering</author>
	<datestamp>1258456200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If taxes have to be raised, then raise the income taxes or property taxes. Sales taxes are a pain to collect, and they have a dampening effect on retail businesses. Also, they are skewed against the poor, since poorer people typically must spend a higher percentage of their income on retail goods.</p></div><p>Which is why that lots of jurisdictions exempt food and drug purchases from sales taxes.  Which is why lots of states don't allow anyone but the state to charge a sales tax on vehical purchases or no sales taxes at all on property sales.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If taxes have to be raised , then raise the income taxes or property taxes .
Sales taxes are a pain to collect , and they have a dampening effect on retail businesses .
Also , they are skewed against the poor , since poorer people typically must spend a higher percentage of their income on retail goods.Which is why that lots of jurisdictions exempt food and drug purchases from sales taxes .
Which is why lots of states do n't allow anyone but the state to charge a sales tax on vehical purchases or no sales taxes at all on property sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If taxes have to be raised, then raise the income taxes or property taxes.
Sales taxes are a pain to collect, and they have a dampening effect on retail businesses.
Also, they are skewed against the poor, since poorer people typically must spend a higher percentage of their income on retail goods.Which is why that lots of jurisdictions exempt food and drug purchases from sales taxes.
Which is why lots of states don't allow anyone but the state to charge a sales tax on vehical purchases or no sales taxes at all on property sales.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138874</id>
	<title>Re:United Kingdom</title>
	<author>SagSaw</author>
	<datestamp>1258473060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There are certain categories of product in the UK that Amazon must charge VAT and then pay that to the Gov; if they can do it here - and elsewhere in Europe - why not in the US?</i> <br>
<br>
From a technical (as opposed to a legal standpoint) the problem is that both the sales tax rate and the types of products to which the sales tax applies is set individually by each state, and in some cases, by individual cities or counties.  According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales\_taxes\_in\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org], Michigan charges a 6\% sales tax on books, but no sales on magazines, while Texas exempts "school supplies" from its 6.25\% to 8.25\% sales tax (rate depends on the location) one weekend each year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are certain categories of product in the UK that Amazon must charge VAT and then pay that to the Gov ; if they can do it here - and elsewhere in Europe - why not in the US ?
From a technical ( as opposed to a legal standpoint ) the problem is that both the sales tax rate and the types of products to which the sales tax applies is set individually by each state , and in some cases , by individual cities or counties .
According to wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] , Michigan charges a 6 \ % sales tax on books , but no sales on magazines , while Texas exempts " school supplies " from its 6.25 \ % to 8.25 \ % sales tax ( rate depends on the location ) one weekend each year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are certain categories of product in the UK that Amazon must charge VAT and then pay that to the Gov; if they can do it here - and elsewhere in Europe - why not in the US?
From a technical (as opposed to a legal standpoint) the problem is that both the sales tax rate and the types of products to which the sales tax applies is set individually by each state, and in some cases, by individual cities or counties.
According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org], Michigan charges a 6\% sales tax on books, but no sales on magazines, while Texas exempts "school supplies" from its 6.25\% to 8.25\% sales tax (rate depends on the location) one weekend each year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137486</id>
	<title>Re:States should fix this in their own laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258462980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>How about the fact that people who are poor benefit vastly more from the services provided by taxes?</p></div></blockquote> </div><p>This is a common fallacy. People who are in the top percentage of wealth concentration benefit the most from public spending. Without the roads the poor person has to walk to work instead of drive, but without the roads Amazon cannot ship anything (not to mention no auto sales), without the Army our oil companies would face constant attacks overseas, without US government to push for trade treaties IP rights cannot be enforced overseas. Without the SEC to enforce trading law no one will have confidence to invest. There are so many more examples but I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find them. The richest people benefit by far the most from government spending.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the fact that people who are poor benefit vastly more from the services provided by taxes ?
This is a common fallacy .
People who are in the top percentage of wealth concentration benefit the most from public spending .
Without the roads the poor person has to walk to work instead of drive , but without the roads Amazon can not ship anything ( not to mention no auto sales ) , without the Army our oil companies would face constant attacks overseas , without US government to push for trade treaties IP rights can not be enforced overseas .
Without the SEC to enforce trading law no one will have confidence to invest .
There are so many more examples but I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find them .
The richest people benefit by far the most from government spending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the fact that people who are poor benefit vastly more from the services provided by taxes?
This is a common fallacy.
People who are in the top percentage of wealth concentration benefit the most from public spending.
Without the roads the poor person has to walk to work instead of drive, but without the roads Amazon cannot ship anything (not to mention no auto sales), without the Army our oil companies would face constant attacks overseas, without US government to push for trade treaties IP rights cannot be enforced overseas.
Without the SEC to enforce trading law no one will have confidence to invest.
There are so many more examples but I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find them.
The richest people benefit by far the most from government spending.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135478</id>
	<title>Re:States should fix this in their own laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258454460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about FairTax instead?  I would prefer we get people to buy less worthless junk and save their own retirement then encourage them to hide their income any way they can.  It would simplify so many things, like no more 401(k)s or 529(c)s or HSA/FSA/MSA.  You don't need it when you are taxed at the register as opposed to the income.  http://www.fairtax.org  By the way the plan is progressive as opposed to regressive because of the rebate checks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about FairTax instead ?
I would prefer we get people to buy less worthless junk and save their own retirement then encourage them to hide their income any way they can .
It would simplify so many things , like no more 401 ( k ) s or 529 ( c ) s or HSA/FSA/MSA .
You do n't need it when you are taxed at the register as opposed to the income .
http : //www.fairtax.org By the way the plan is progressive as opposed to regressive because of the rebate checks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about FairTax instead?
I would prefer we get people to buy less worthless junk and save their own retirement then encourage them to hide their income any way they can.
It would simplify so many things, like no more 401(k)s or 529(c)s or HSA/FSA/MSA.
You don't need it when you are taxed at the register as opposed to the income.
http://www.fairtax.org  By the way the plan is progressive as opposed to regressive because of the rebate checks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136436</id>
	<title>Not how it works.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258458240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless Amazon has a physical presence in a state, they don't have to collect sales tax.  That's the way it works, and changing it is silly.  The reason Amazon has to charge tax for the shops on the marketplace is because those guys *do* have a physical presence in the state in question.</p><p>Changing the way this works is silly because it violates the moratorium congress passed on taxing the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless Amazon has a physical presence in a state , they do n't have to collect sales tax .
That 's the way it works , and changing it is silly .
The reason Amazon has to charge tax for the shops on the marketplace is because those guys * do * have a physical presence in the state in question.Changing the way this works is silly because it violates the moratorium congress passed on taxing the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless Amazon has a physical presence in a state, they don't have to collect sales tax.
That's the way it works, and changing it is silly.
The reason Amazon has to charge tax for the shops on the marketplace is because those guys *do* have a physical presence in the state in question.Changing the way this works is silly because it violates the moratorium congress passed on taxing the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133778</id>
	<title>So make it simple.</title>
	<author>cptdondo</author>
	<datestamp>1258448940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Charge an "alternative minimum sales tax" of, say, 8.90\%, that gets split between the feds and the local government where the business has its business license.  Or change the laws such that sales tax is owed in the jurisdiction where the business is headquartered.</p><p>This issue of taxing the buyer and expecting the seller to deal with it is pretty absurd.  It works for bricks and mortar, but barely - New York tried to collect taxes from New York residents shopping in new Jersey.</p><p>So fix the broken tax code instead of playing whack-a-mole with my wallet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charge an " alternative minimum sales tax " of , say , 8.90 \ % , that gets split between the feds and the local government where the business has its business license .
Or change the laws such that sales tax is owed in the jurisdiction where the business is headquartered.This issue of taxing the buyer and expecting the seller to deal with it is pretty absurd .
It works for bricks and mortar , but barely - New York tried to collect taxes from New York residents shopping in new Jersey.So fix the broken tax code instead of playing whack-a-mole with my wallet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charge an "alternative minimum sales tax" of, say, 8.90\%, that gets split between the feds and the local government where the business has its business license.
Or change the laws such that sales tax is owed in the jurisdiction where the business is headquartered.This issue of taxing the buyer and expecting the seller to deal with it is pretty absurd.
It works for bricks and mortar, but barely - New York tried to collect taxes from New York residents shopping in new Jersey.So fix the broken tax code instead of playing whack-a-mole with my wallet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</id>
	<title>The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Anita Coney</author>
	<datestamp>1258448940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you buy something online or via a catalog, you should pay the taxes from the place it was shipped.</p><p>If I go to California to buy something, I have to pay California's taxes and not my own.  If I pay someone to go to California to buy something for me, I'd have to pay California's taxes and no my own.  But for some bizarre reason, when I pay FedEx to ship it to me, suddenly I do not have to pay California's tax but I have to pay my state's use tax.</p><p>So to give an example, if I buy something from Amazon and it ships from California, Amazon should bill me California's tax.</p><p>Here's why states hate this idea.  Because it would allow the states to compete with each other to bring more shipping business into its state.  For example, merely to get a bunch of shipping centers built in Oregon, that state could have no such tax.  Amazon would then build their shipping centers there and the other states would get nothing.</p><p>There's nothing the government hates more than competing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you buy something online or via a catalog , you should pay the taxes from the place it was shipped.If I go to California to buy something , I have to pay California 's taxes and not my own .
If I pay someone to go to California to buy something for me , I 'd have to pay California 's taxes and no my own .
But for some bizarre reason , when I pay FedEx to ship it to me , suddenly I do not have to pay California 's tax but I have to pay my state 's use tax.So to give an example , if I buy something from Amazon and it ships from California , Amazon should bill me California 's tax.Here 's why states hate this idea .
Because it would allow the states to compete with each other to bring more shipping business into its state .
For example , merely to get a bunch of shipping centers built in Oregon , that state could have no such tax .
Amazon would then build their shipping centers there and the other states would get nothing.There 's nothing the government hates more than competing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you buy something online or via a catalog, you should pay the taxes from the place it was shipped.If I go to California to buy something, I have to pay California's taxes and not my own.
If I pay someone to go to California to buy something for me, I'd have to pay California's taxes and no my own.
But for some bizarre reason, when I pay FedEx to ship it to me, suddenly I do not have to pay California's tax but I have to pay my state's use tax.So to give an example, if I buy something from Amazon and it ships from California, Amazon should bill me California's tax.Here's why states hate this idea.
Because it would allow the states to compete with each other to bring more shipping business into its state.
For example, merely to get a bunch of shipping centers built in Oregon, that state could have no such tax.
Amazon would then build their shipping centers there and the other states would get nothing.There's nothing the government hates more than competing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137412</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are good...</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1258462560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The states that take in federal money aren't necessarily unable to support themselves; many are just receiving large direct transfer payments to individuals within the states. If you made poor states fund themselves, you would find that welfare payments would become quite a bit smaller.<br> <br>As for the West, there are plenty of states out there that would love for the Feds to sell off their holdings to private individuals...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The states that take in federal money are n't necessarily unable to support themselves ; many are just receiving large direct transfer payments to individuals within the states .
If you made poor states fund themselves , you would find that welfare payments would become quite a bit smaller .
As for the West , there are plenty of states out there that would love for the Feds to sell off their holdings to private individuals.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The states that take in federal money aren't necessarily unable to support themselves; many are just receiving large direct transfer payments to individuals within the states.
If you made poor states fund themselves, you would find that welfare payments would become quite a bit smaller.
As for the West, there are plenty of states out there that would love for the Feds to sell off their holdings to private individuals...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133888</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>mordred99</author>
	<datestamp>1258449240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dell collects sales taxes (or they have on my last 10 PCs I have purchased for family members).  Agree 100\% with your point, just pointing out that fact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dell collects sales taxes ( or they have on my last 10 PCs I have purchased for family members ) .
Agree 100 \ % with your point , just pointing out that fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dell collects sales taxes (or they have on my last 10 PCs I have purchased for family members).
Agree 100\% with your point, just pointing out that fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134612</id>
	<title>Re:Legally due</title>
	<author>kiwimate</author>
	<datestamp>1258451640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes it is; that's why state tax forms give you a way out by allowing you to estimate how much you owe (see several other posts in this article for more detail). Just because something is legally due, or legally prohibited, does not mean it is possible for every violation to be tracked. This falls into the realm of logically incorrect. It's analogous to the following examples.</p><p>If it was legally prohibited for me to bring wine across the state border into Pennsylvania, then I would be sued and asked to pay a lot of money. It is legally prohibited. I haven't.</p><p>If was legally prohibited to exceed the speed limit, then people wouldn't do it. It is. And they do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it is ; that 's why state tax forms give you a way out by allowing you to estimate how much you owe ( see several other posts in this article for more detail ) .
Just because something is legally due , or legally prohibited , does not mean it is possible for every violation to be tracked .
This falls into the realm of logically incorrect .
It 's analogous to the following examples.If it was legally prohibited for me to bring wine across the state border into Pennsylvania , then I would be sued and asked to pay a lot of money .
It is legally prohibited .
I have n't.If was legally prohibited to exceed the speed limit , then people would n't do it .
It is .
And they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it is; that's why state tax forms give you a way out by allowing you to estimate how much you owe (see several other posts in this article for more detail).
Just because something is legally due, or legally prohibited, does not mean it is possible for every violation to be tracked.
This falls into the realm of logically incorrect.
It's analogous to the following examples.If it was legally prohibited for me to bring wine across the state border into Pennsylvania, then I would be sued and asked to pay a lot of money.
It is legally prohibited.
I haven't.If was legally prohibited to exceed the speed limit, then people wouldn't do it.
It is.
And they do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30150936</id>
	<title>Re:alternative</title>
	<author>dvorakkeyboardrules</author>
	<datestamp>1257080580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure, and what exactly are you going to cut?

One man's waste is another's paycheck.</p></div><p>Just to give one example, here in Denver there is a perfectly fine road that was repaved because it was "scheduled," using federal DOT dollars. This sort of thing doesn't appear in official budgets. And the local authorities like it because it's "free" money from their point of view.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , and what exactly are you going to cut ?
One man 's waste is another 's paycheck.Just to give one example , here in Denver there is a perfectly fine road that was repaved because it was " scheduled , " using federal DOT dollars .
This sort of thing does n't appear in official budgets .
And the local authorities like it because it 's " free " money from their point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, and what exactly are you going to cut?
One man's waste is another's paycheck.Just to give one example, here in Denver there is a perfectly fine road that was repaved because it was "scheduled," using federal DOT dollars.
This sort of thing doesn't appear in official budgets.
And the local authorities like it because it's "free" money from their point of view.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136340</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Gribflex</author>
	<datestamp>1258457820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree*.<br>You should pay the tax for the state in which you bought the item in.<br>If you bought the item in Nevada at a retail store; pay taxes in Nevada.<br>If you bought the item in California at a retail store; pay taxes in California.<br>If you bought the item in Nevada, from a store in California, pay the Nevada taxes.</p><p>For a company that has no physical borders, this system is the one that is the easiest to enforce, and it makes at least as much sense as any other system. Especially because the tax is based on the price of the item, and the price at most large retailers is set by the purchasers location (the price of an XBox, or even a book, in the US, Europe or Canada is different, even after taking into account exchange rates).</p><p>If you did it another way you'd run into interesting problems like:<br>My purchasing department in New York, bought me a Mac Laptop at the online store which is based out of California. The Laptop was shipped to my address in Alberta, Canada, from the warehouse in Taiwan.</p><p>Which tax do I pay? Heck, which price do I pay?<br>Ideally, I'd like to pay the Taiwan price (lowest) and the Alberta sales tax (0\%). However, it makes reasonable sense that I should pay the New York Price and Tax.</p><p>*For the record, this is the System that exists in Canada (where I'm from), and has existed for as long as we've had nation wide mail order companies (&gt;100 years). So, I'm a little biased in this direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree * .You should pay the tax for the state in which you bought the item in.If you bought the item in Nevada at a retail store ; pay taxes in Nevada.If you bought the item in California at a retail store ; pay taxes in California.If you bought the item in Nevada , from a store in California , pay the Nevada taxes.For a company that has no physical borders , this system is the one that is the easiest to enforce , and it makes at least as much sense as any other system .
Especially because the tax is based on the price of the item , and the price at most large retailers is set by the purchasers location ( the price of an XBox , or even a book , in the US , Europe or Canada is different , even after taking into account exchange rates ) .If you did it another way you 'd run into interesting problems like : My purchasing department in New York , bought me a Mac Laptop at the online store which is based out of California .
The Laptop was shipped to my address in Alberta , Canada , from the warehouse in Taiwan.Which tax do I pay ?
Heck , which price do I pay ? Ideally , I 'd like to pay the Taiwan price ( lowest ) and the Alberta sales tax ( 0 \ % ) .
However , it makes reasonable sense that I should pay the New York Price and Tax .
* For the record , this is the System that exists in Canada ( where I 'm from ) , and has existed for as long as we 've had nation wide mail order companies ( &gt; 100 years ) .
So , I 'm a little biased in this direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree*.You should pay the tax for the state in which you bought the item in.If you bought the item in Nevada at a retail store; pay taxes in Nevada.If you bought the item in California at a retail store; pay taxes in California.If you bought the item in Nevada, from a store in California, pay the Nevada taxes.For a company that has no physical borders, this system is the one that is the easiest to enforce, and it makes at least as much sense as any other system.
Especially because the tax is based on the price of the item, and the price at most large retailers is set by the purchasers location (the price of an XBox, or even a book, in the US, Europe or Canada is different, even after taking into account exchange rates).If you did it another way you'd run into interesting problems like:My purchasing department in New York, bought me a Mac Laptop at the online store which is based out of California.
The Laptop was shipped to my address in Alberta, Canada, from the warehouse in Taiwan.Which tax do I pay?
Heck, which price do I pay?Ideally, I'd like to pay the Taiwan price (lowest) and the Alberta sales tax (0\%).
However, it makes reasonable sense that I should pay the New York Price and Tax.
*For the record, this is the System that exists in Canada (where I'm from), and has existed for as long as we've had nation wide mail order companies (&gt;100 years).
So, I'm a little biased in this direction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30154418</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258630740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, suddenly I'm a taxpayer of California, but what services is the state government providing me? Roads,</p></div><p>How the fuck do you think your shipped item gets to you? By magical ferry?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , suddenly I 'm a taxpayer of California , but what services is the state government providing me ?
Roads,How the fuck do you think your shipped item gets to you ?
By magical ferry ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, suddenly I'm a taxpayer of California, but what services is the state government providing me?
Roads,How the fuck do you think your shipped item gets to you?
By magical ferry?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137252</id>
	<title>Re:States should fix this in their own laws</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1258461840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, it is better to punish people for being successful rather than punish people for spending foolishly?</p></div><p>Taxation isn't punishment.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How about the fact that people who make more, spend more?</p></div><p>Not proportionally so. In general, the more people make, the larger amount of money they do not directly spend on buying stuff (but rather invest etc), for obvious reasons.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How about the fact that people who make more pay more in other taxes to the point they pay more taxes over all?</p></div><p>This only holds true if income tax is in effect.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How about the fact that people who are poor spend a greater portion of their income on items that are not taxed?</p></div><p>It's an attempt to mitigate the regressive nature of the sales tax. It further reinforces the point that it's inherently broken, and if so, why try to patch it up, if it's much simpler to replace it with a better taxation method?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How about the fact that people who are poor benefit vastly more from the services provided by taxes?</p></div><p>Directly benefit, perhaps. Rich benefit a lot indirectly by having a peaceful and stable society to live in and be productive. You may never see a cent of socialized health care, for example, but you still benefit from the fact that there are no nation scale pandemics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , it is better to punish people for being successful rather than punish people for spending foolishly ? Taxation is n't punishment.How about the fact that people who make more , spend more ? Not proportionally so .
In general , the more people make , the larger amount of money they do not directly spend on buying stuff ( but rather invest etc ) , for obvious reasons.How about the fact that people who make more pay more in other taxes to the point they pay more taxes over all ? This only holds true if income tax is in effect.How about the fact that people who are poor spend a greater portion of their income on items that are not taxed ? It 's an attempt to mitigate the regressive nature of the sales tax .
It further reinforces the point that it 's inherently broken , and if so , why try to patch it up , if it 's much simpler to replace it with a better taxation method ? How about the fact that people who are poor benefit vastly more from the services provided by taxes ? Directly benefit , perhaps .
Rich benefit a lot indirectly by having a peaceful and stable society to live in and be productive .
You may never see a cent of socialized health care , for example , but you still benefit from the fact that there are no nation scale pandemics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, it is better to punish people for being successful rather than punish people for spending foolishly?Taxation isn't punishment.How about the fact that people who make more, spend more?Not proportionally so.
In general, the more people make, the larger amount of money they do not directly spend on buying stuff (but rather invest etc), for obvious reasons.How about the fact that people who make more pay more in other taxes to the point they pay more taxes over all?This only holds true if income tax is in effect.How about the fact that people who are poor spend a greater portion of their income on items that are not taxed?It's an attempt to mitigate the regressive nature of the sales tax.
It further reinforces the point that it's inherently broken, and if so, why try to patch it up, if it's much simpler to replace it with a better taxation method?How about the fact that people who are poor benefit vastly more from the services provided by taxes?Directly benefit, perhaps.
Rich benefit a lot indirectly by having a peaceful and stable society to live in and be productive.
You may never see a cent of socialized health care, for example, but you still benefit from the fact that there are no nation scale pandemics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134728</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, taxes, taxes</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1258451940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If taxes have to be raised, then raise the income taxes or property taxes. Sales taxes are a pain to collect, and they have a dampening effect on retail businesses. Also, they are skewed against the poor, since poorer people typically must spend a higher percentage of their income on retail goods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If taxes have to be raised , then raise the income taxes or property taxes .
Sales taxes are a pain to collect , and they have a dampening effect on retail businesses .
Also , they are skewed against the poor , since poorer people typically must spend a higher percentage of their income on retail goods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If taxes have to be raised, then raise the income taxes or property taxes.
Sales taxes are a pain to collect, and they have a dampening effect on retail businesses.
Also, they are skewed against the poor, since poorer people typically must spend a higher percentage of their income on retail goods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139354</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, taxes, taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258476600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Magic?  The State Needs X dollars.  Drop the sales tax and property and income tax go up to make up the difference.  Zero Sum.<br>Alaska does not count they have Oil and get more federal money back then they pay in federal taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Magic ?
The State Needs X dollars .
Drop the sales tax and property and income tax go up to make up the difference .
Zero Sum.Alaska does not count they have Oil and get more federal money back then they pay in federal taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Magic?
The State Needs X dollars.
Drop the sales tax and property and income tax go up to make up the difference.
Zero Sum.Alaska does not count they have Oil and get more federal money back then they pay in federal taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135412</id>
	<title>CBPP is a pro-big government liberal organization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258454220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Michael Mazerov's goal is to provide as much money to the government so it can grow as big as possible in support of CBPP's left leaning political agenda. This article needs to be viewed in the context of CBPP's history of advocating entitlements, higher tax rates, and big government. Mazerov is not interested in how many Internet businesses will suffer or go out of business should his recommendations be implemented. It is well understood that when taxes rise, people go out of their way to avoid paying them. Instead of attacking consumers and businesses, Mazerov's time would be better spent helping state governments figure out how to lower their sales tax rates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Michael Mazerov 's goal is to provide as much money to the government so it can grow as big as possible in support of CBPP 's left leaning political agenda .
This article needs to be viewed in the context of CBPP 's history of advocating entitlements , higher tax rates , and big government .
Mazerov is not interested in how many Internet businesses will suffer or go out of business should his recommendations be implemented .
It is well understood that when taxes rise , people go out of their way to avoid paying them .
Instead of attacking consumers and businesses , Mazerov 's time would be better spent helping state governments figure out how to lower their sales tax rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michael Mazerov's goal is to provide as much money to the government so it can grow as big as possible in support of CBPP's left leaning political agenda.
This article needs to be viewed in the context of CBPP's history of advocating entitlements, higher tax rates, and big government.
Mazerov is not interested in how many Internet businesses will suffer or go out of business should his recommendations be implemented.
It is well understood that when taxes rise, people go out of their way to avoid paying them.
Instead of attacking consumers and businesses, Mazerov's time would be better spent helping state governments figure out how to lower their sales tax rates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134266</id>
	<title>Mazerov can bite me</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1258450500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sales tax is almost 10\% where I live. Up yours, Mazerov, and three cheers for Amazon. And here's hoping a meteor hits Sacramento.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sales tax is almost 10 \ % where I live .
Up yours , Mazerov , and three cheers for Amazon .
And here 's hoping a meteor hits Sacramento .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sales tax is almost 10\% where I live.
Up yours, Mazerov, and three cheers for Amazon.
And here's hoping a meteor hits Sacramento.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137078</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>LwoodY2K</author>
	<datestamp>1258460940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I go to California to buy something, I have to pay California's taxes and not my own.</p></div><p>If you are from a non-taxed area (eg a Canadian visiting Washington) and purchasing something to take home (eg a shirt), you are not required to pay taxes on it if you present proof of non-residency.  If you are purchasing something to consume there (eg food) you do have to pay taxes.
My recollection is that it is the same for eg Oregonians (where Oregon has no sales tax) visiting Washington/California/etc. but that it also depends on reciprocity between the states in question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I go to California to buy something , I have to pay California 's taxes and not my own.If you are from a non-taxed area ( eg a Canadian visiting Washington ) and purchasing something to take home ( eg a shirt ) , you are not required to pay taxes on it if you present proof of non-residency .
If you are purchasing something to consume there ( eg food ) you do have to pay taxes .
My recollection is that it is the same for eg Oregonians ( where Oregon has no sales tax ) visiting Washington/California/etc .
but that it also depends on reciprocity between the states in question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I go to California to buy something, I have to pay California's taxes and not my own.If you are from a non-taxed area (eg a Canadian visiting Washington) and purchasing something to take home (eg a shirt), you are not required to pay taxes on it if you present proof of non-residency.
If you are purchasing something to consume there (eg food) you do have to pay taxes.
My recollection is that it is the same for eg Oregonians (where Oregon has no sales tax) visiting Washington/California/etc.
but that it also depends on reciprocity between the states in question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139600</id>
	<title>But what I wanna know is why iTunes Store is now..</title>
	<author>herojig</author>
	<datestamp>1258478520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But what I wanna know is why the iTunes Store is now taxing us?!? I just got charged $.49 when I purchased 1Password Pro app.  Where does that money go?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what I wan na know is why the iTunes Store is now taxing us ? ! ?
I just got charged $ .49 when I purchased 1Password Pro app .
Where does that money go ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what I wanna know is why the iTunes Store is now taxing us?!?
I just got charged $.49 when I purchased 1Password Pro app.
Where does that money go?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137186</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258461540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Walmart does collect the sales tax, since it has a nexus in every state. Amazon retailers with a nexus in your state do collect the tax.<br>As pointed out this is an opportunity for a IT project. I wonder how many zip+4 codes cross these boundries. (It should not be that hard to get<br>the post office to fix this if need be). With 9 digits one can almost get down to the house level in the us plus or minus the problem of assignment.<br>Since every shipper needs zip+4 and look up systems are already on line, the zip code issue could be solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Walmart does collect the sales tax , since it has a nexus in every state .
Amazon retailers with a nexus in your state do collect the tax.As pointed out this is an opportunity for a IT project .
I wonder how many zip + 4 codes cross these boundries .
( It should not be that hard to getthe post office to fix this if need be ) .
With 9 digits one can almost get down to the house level in the us plus or minus the problem of assignment.Since every shipper needs zip + 4 and look up systems are already on line , the zip code issue could be solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Walmart does collect the sales tax, since it has a nexus in every state.
Amazon retailers with a nexus in your state do collect the tax.As pointed out this is an opportunity for a IT project.
I wonder how many zip+4 codes cross these boundries.
(It should not be that hard to getthe post office to fix this if need be).
With 9 digits one can almost get down to the house level in the us plus or minus the problem of assignment.Since every shipper needs zip+4 and look up systems are already on line, the zip code issue could be solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135240</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258453740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't agree more.  Afterall, if you're paying sales tax to the state in which a service is actually being provided, the sales tax is going towards the right projects!  If Amazon builds a shipping center in Oregon, Oregon needs the money to improve roads/widen roads/do whatever it takes to make life better in Oregon!  How Kentucky can say they deserve that money to improve their own roads makes no sense to me.  There is nothing happening in your state!  How about this, Kentucky allows me to deduct their sales tax normally charged to me, and I can fix up my house and or lawn?  That would help me!  That would help my neighbors!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't agree more .
Afterall , if you 're paying sales tax to the state in which a service is actually being provided , the sales tax is going towards the right projects !
If Amazon builds a shipping center in Oregon , Oregon needs the money to improve roads/widen roads/do whatever it takes to make life better in Oregon !
How Kentucky can say they deserve that money to improve their own roads makes no sense to me .
There is nothing happening in your state !
How about this , Kentucky allows me to deduct their sales tax normally charged to me , and I can fix up my house and or lawn ?
That would help me !
That would help my neighbors !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't agree more.
Afterall, if you're paying sales tax to the state in which a service is actually being provided, the sales tax is going towards the right projects!
If Amazon builds a shipping center in Oregon, Oregon needs the money to improve roads/widen roads/do whatever it takes to make life better in Oregon!
How Kentucky can say they deserve that money to improve their own roads makes no sense to me.
There is nothing happening in your state!
How about this, Kentucky allows me to deduct their sales tax normally charged to me, and I can fix up my house and or lawn?
That would help me!
That would help my neighbors!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30142552</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Dun Malg</author>
	<datestamp>1257086220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that you pay California sales tax when you buy something there as a visitor is not part of the intent of sales tax, it's simply an unintended consequence of the implementation. The intent is to tax residents of the state on their purchases to fund improvements in the state. Using the aberration of an out of state visitor taxed on in state purchases as a justification to extend the aberration to mail order is fucking asinine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that you pay California sales tax when you buy something there as a visitor is not part of the intent of sales tax , it 's simply an unintended consequence of the implementation .
The intent is to tax residents of the state on their purchases to fund improvements in the state .
Using the aberration of an out of state visitor taxed on in state purchases as a justification to extend the aberration to mail order is fucking asinine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that you pay California sales tax when you buy something there as a visitor is not part of the intent of sales tax, it's simply an unintended consequence of the implementation.
The intent is to tax residents of the state on their purchases to fund improvements in the state.
Using the aberration of an out of state visitor taxed on in state purchases as a justification to extend the aberration to mail order is fucking asinine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135500</id>
	<title>Re:Government on the attack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258454520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget the weasel words:</p><p><div class="quote"><div><p>while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year.</p></div></div><p>Unfair?  Legally due?  These are the leper's bell of the approaching populist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the weasel words : while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year.Unfair ?
Legally due ?
These are the leper 's bell of the approaching populist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the weasel words:while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year.Unfair?
Legally due?
These are the leper's bell of the approaching populist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136460</id>
	<title>Re:States should fix this in their own laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258458300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but the person with $1,000,000 income is likely to buy a lot more shirts, and ones that probably cost a lot more than $20.  More than likely they are going to buy $7,000 suits, more expensive cars, more expensive food, eat out more often,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Now, the bracketed income tax is even more regressive.  If you work 20 hours/week, you get taxed x\%.  If you work 40 hours/week, you may pay x+y\% since you'll be in a higher bracket.  This is regressive, since if you work twice as much you do not get twice the take home pay.</p><p>So which is more regressive???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but the person with $ 1,000,000 income is likely to buy a lot more shirts , and ones that probably cost a lot more than $ 20 .
More than likely they are going to buy $ 7,000 suits , more expensive cars , more expensive food , eat out more often , ...Now , the bracketed income tax is even more regressive .
If you work 20 hours/week , you get taxed x \ % .
If you work 40 hours/week , you may pay x + y \ % since you 'll be in a higher bracket .
This is regressive , since if you work twice as much you do not get twice the take home pay.So which is more regressive ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but the person with $1,000,000 income is likely to buy a lot more shirts, and ones that probably cost a lot more than $20.
More than likely they are going to buy $7,000 suits, more expensive cars, more expensive food, eat out more often, ...Now, the bracketed income tax is even more regressive.
If you work 20 hours/week, you get taxed x\%.
If you work 40 hours/week, you may pay x+y\% since you'll be in a higher bracket.
This is regressive, since if you work twice as much you do not get twice the take home pay.So which is more regressive??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134032</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, taxes, taxes</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1258449720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do we really need to tax people's money as it goes into the wallet AND as it goes out?</p></div><p>Yes, how else can we take enough money from the producer class to keep the consumer class voting for the status quo?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we really need to tax people 's money as it goes into the wallet AND as it goes out ? Yes , how else can we take enough money from the producer class to keep the consumer class voting for the status quo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we really need to tax people's money as it goes into the wallet AND as it goes out?Yes, how else can we take enough money from the producer class to keep the consumer class voting for the status quo?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135206</id>
	<title>Re:Simplify</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1258453560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but it isn't done at the state level.  Once you have to pay taxes in a state, you need to calculate the rate based on where in the state the customer is usually.  This means, for example, in Ohio where taxes are calculated on a township level that you have a separate tax rate for every township in the state.</p><p>Other states, like Illinois, change the tax rates based on city and county rather than township.</p><p>There is no 1-to-1 mapping of townships to cities or vice versa.  This means you need to have multiple ways of mapping where customers are located based on the state.  And these boundaries are by no means static.  Some previously unclaimed land ends up annexed by a city and it changes the tax rate.</p><p>OK, so you just reduce it down to a single tax rate.  Except that doesn't solve the paying problem: you still have thousands of different taxing bodies that collect the tax.  So if you make a sale in Sharon township in Ohio, you would need to pay Sharon township.  At that point, you may as well just have a different tax rate because you need to identify the customer down to the city, county, township and a couple of other boundaries as well.</p><p>No, I do not think you could ever get this done at a state level only.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but it is n't done at the state level .
Once you have to pay taxes in a state , you need to calculate the rate based on where in the state the customer is usually .
This means , for example , in Ohio where taxes are calculated on a township level that you have a separate tax rate for every township in the state.Other states , like Illinois , change the tax rates based on city and county rather than township.There is no 1-to-1 mapping of townships to cities or vice versa .
This means you need to have multiple ways of mapping where customers are located based on the state .
And these boundaries are by no means static .
Some previously unclaimed land ends up annexed by a city and it changes the tax rate.OK , so you just reduce it down to a single tax rate .
Except that does n't solve the paying problem : you still have thousands of different taxing bodies that collect the tax .
So if you make a sale in Sharon township in Ohio , you would need to pay Sharon township .
At that point , you may as well just have a different tax rate because you need to identify the customer down to the city , county , township and a couple of other boundaries as well.No , I do not think you could ever get this done at a state level only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but it isn't done at the state level.
Once you have to pay taxes in a state, you need to calculate the rate based on where in the state the customer is usually.
This means, for example, in Ohio where taxes are calculated on a township level that you have a separate tax rate for every township in the state.Other states, like Illinois, change the tax rates based on city and county rather than township.There is no 1-to-1 mapping of townships to cities or vice versa.
This means you need to have multiple ways of mapping where customers are located based on the state.
And these boundaries are by no means static.
Some previously unclaimed land ends up annexed by a city and it changes the tax rate.OK, so you just reduce it down to a single tax rate.
Except that doesn't solve the paying problem: you still have thousands of different taxing bodies that collect the tax.
So if you make a sale in Sharon township in Ohio, you would need to pay Sharon township.
At that point, you may as well just have a different tax rate because you need to identify the customer down to the city, county, township and a couple of other boundaries as well.No, I do not think you could ever get this done at a state level only.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138932</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>kickassweb</author>
	<datestamp>1258473480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a small businessperson already overburdened with paperwork. If I had to collect sales tax for every state I have a customer in, I'd have 30 or so quarterly forms to fill out and file instead of the one I barely have time for. Personally I think sales tax should be done away with entirely anyway EVERYWHERE. It's overly burdensome on the poor, who can least afford it. And then this argument goes away. If states need income, let them charge income tax and property tax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a small businessperson already overburdened with paperwork .
If I had to collect sales tax for every state I have a customer in , I 'd have 30 or so quarterly forms to fill out and file instead of the one I barely have time for .
Personally I think sales tax should be done away with entirely anyway EVERYWHERE .
It 's overly burdensome on the poor , who can least afford it .
And then this argument goes away .
If states need income , let them charge income tax and property tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a small businessperson already overburdened with paperwork.
If I had to collect sales tax for every state I have a customer in, I'd have 30 or so quarterly forms to fill out and file instead of the one I barely have time for.
Personally I think sales tax should be done away with entirely anyway EVERYWHERE.
It's overly burdensome on the poor, who can least afford it.
And then this argument goes away.
If states need income, let them charge income tax and property tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138394</id>
	<title>Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258469040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see all kinds of crazy arguments for and against this tax.  However, the simple fact remains that according to the Constitution only the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, which is exactly what Amazon is engaging in.  It is a violation of the supreme law of the land for any state to impose any tax (use charge, etc) on any trade that takes place in this manner.  It is a pitty that the Federal government will not arrest any and all state legislators voting for any such tax or fee and charge them with treason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see all kinds of crazy arguments for and against this tax .
However , the simple fact remains that according to the Constitution only the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce , which is exactly what Amazon is engaging in .
It is a violation of the supreme law of the land for any state to impose any tax ( use charge , etc ) on any trade that takes place in this manner .
It is a pitty that the Federal government will not arrest any and all state legislators voting for any such tax or fee and charge them with treason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see all kinds of crazy arguments for and against this tax.
However, the simple fact remains that according to the Constitution only the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, which is exactly what Amazon is engaging in.
It is a violation of the supreme law of the land for any state to impose any tax (use charge, etc) on any trade that takes place in this manner.
It is a pitty that the Federal government will not arrest any and all state legislators voting for any such tax or fee and charge them with treason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138144</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258467180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny thing is you have the practical aspect of it exactly correct but the legal part all wrong.  If you buy something in California you owe use tax on it in your state (assuming is has a use tax).  In most states you are given a credit against your state's tax up to the amount of the sales tax you paid in another state.  If you buy a car in another state and immediately bring it into your state you owe sales tax in your state not the state in which you purchased the car.  I've done this a couple of times on cars purchased when I was working out of state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny thing is you have the practical aspect of it exactly correct but the legal part all wrong .
If you buy something in California you owe use tax on it in your state ( assuming is has a use tax ) .
In most states you are given a credit against your state 's tax up to the amount of the sales tax you paid in another state .
If you buy a car in another state and immediately bring it into your state you owe sales tax in your state not the state in which you purchased the car .
I 've done this a couple of times on cars purchased when I was working out of state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny thing is you have the practical aspect of it exactly correct but the legal part all wrong.
If you buy something in California you owe use tax on it in your state (assuming is has a use tax).
In most states you are given a credit against your state's tax up to the amount of the sales tax you paid in another state.
If you buy a car in another state and immediately bring it into your state you owe sales tax in your state not the state in which you purchased the car.
I've done this a couple of times on cars purchased when I was working out of state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134992</id>
	<title>United Kingdom</title>
	<author>TDyl</author>
	<datestamp>1258452900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are certain categories of product in the UK that Amazon must charge VAT and then pay that to the Gov; if they can do it here - and elsewhere in Europe - why not in the US?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are certain categories of product in the UK that Amazon must charge VAT and then pay that to the Gov ; if they can do it here - and elsewhere in Europe - why not in the US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are certain categories of product in the UK that Amazon must charge VAT and then pay that to the Gov; if they can do it here - and elsewhere in Europe - why not in the US?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139154</id>
	<title>Re:States should fix this in their own laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>**Commence flames from the other side of the political spectrum**</i> </p><p>Basing taxes simply on income is foolish.  Income tracks too closely with profit and profit is what gets cut first and fastest in a recession.  This means, tax revenues decrease a lot precisely when Keynsians like yourself (admit it) love to increase spending.  A more stable tax base would include items that fluctuate less, like a flat tariff (about 5\% - not enough to reward smuggling).  Vehicle counts are not as likely to fluctuate as wildly as the stock market.  Ergo, tags are a more stable base however 'regressive' they may appear to your illiberal sensibilities.  No, you are not 'liberal' don't pride yourself on it.  You are a rent-seeking motherfucker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * Commence flames from the other side of the political spectrum * * Basing taxes simply on income is foolish .
Income tracks too closely with profit and profit is what gets cut first and fastest in a recession .
This means , tax revenues decrease a lot precisely when Keynsians like yourself ( admit it ) love to increase spending .
A more stable tax base would include items that fluctuate less , like a flat tariff ( about 5 \ % - not enough to reward smuggling ) .
Vehicle counts are not as likely to fluctuate as wildly as the stock market .
Ergo , tags are a more stable base however 'regressive ' they may appear to your illiberal sensibilities .
No , you are not 'liberal ' do n't pride yourself on it .
You are a rent-seeking motherfucker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>**Commence flames from the other side of the political spectrum** Basing taxes simply on income is foolish.
Income tracks too closely with profit and profit is what gets cut first and fastest in a recession.
This means, tax revenues decrease a lot precisely when Keynsians like yourself (admit it) love to increase spending.
A more stable tax base would include items that fluctuate less, like a flat tariff (about 5\% - not enough to reward smuggling).
Vehicle counts are not as likely to fluctuate as wildly as the stock market.
Ergo, tags are a more stable base however 'regressive' they may appear to your illiberal sensibilities.
No, you are not 'liberal' don't pride yourself on it.
You are a rent-seeking motherfucker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136392</id>
	<title>Re:alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258458000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about Goldman Sacks bailouts?<br>How about AIG bailouts?<br>How about $9 Billion to UAW for Chrysler bailout?<br>How about the 4th GM bailout?<br>How about the 800Billion stimilus that DIDNT create jobs?<br>How about the 1Trillion TARP that is unaccounted for?<br>How about the 1.2 Trillion Healthcare bill that only insures a fraction of the uninsured?</p><p>Just because you don't see waste doesn't mean the rest of us don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Goldman Sacks bailouts ? How about AIG bailouts ? How about $ 9 Billion to UAW for Chrysler bailout ? How about the 4th GM bailout ? How about the 800Billion stimilus that DIDNT create jobs ? How about the 1Trillion TARP that is unaccounted for ? How about the 1.2 Trillion Healthcare bill that only insures a fraction of the uninsured ? Just because you do n't see waste does n't mean the rest of us do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Goldman Sacks bailouts?How about AIG bailouts?How about $9 Billion to UAW for Chrysler bailout?How about the 4th GM bailout?How about the 800Billion stimilus that DIDNT create jobs?How about the 1Trillion TARP that is unaccounted for?How about the 1.2 Trillion Healthcare bill that only insures a fraction of the uninsured?Just because you don't see waste doesn't mean the rest of us don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134742</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, taxes, taxes</title>
	<author>murdocj</author>
	<datestamp>1258452000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's true, New Hampshire doesn't have a sales tax.  It DOES have a sky high property tax that can end up forcing people out of their own homes.  Be careful what you wish for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true , New Hampshire does n't have a sales tax .
It DOES have a sky high property tax that can end up forcing people out of their own homes .
Be careful what you wish for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true, New Hampshire doesn't have a sales tax.
It DOES have a sky high property tax that can end up forcing people out of their own homes.
Be careful what you wish for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134556</id>
	<title>Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5\%-10\% price advantag</title>
	<author>SwashbucklingCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1258451460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not when you factor in shipping...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not when you factor in shipping.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not when you factor in shipping...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920</id>
	<title>States should fix this in their own laws</title>
	<author>hellfire</author>
	<datestamp>1258449360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just stop using sales tax.  Most states already have income taxes of some kind, it's a simple matter of ratcheting down sales tax until it's eventually zero and ratcheting up income tax.</p><p>Sales tax is unfair because it's a regressive tax.  It's base on how much you buy, not how much you make, and the poor are taxed more percentage wise than a rich person.  A $20 shirt with 6\% sales tax costs the same if you make $10,000 vs if you make $1,000,000.  Income tax is the fair way to go.</p><p>**Commence flames from the other side of the political spectrum**</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just stop using sales tax .
Most states already have income taxes of some kind , it 's a simple matter of ratcheting down sales tax until it 's eventually zero and ratcheting up income tax.Sales tax is unfair because it 's a regressive tax .
It 's base on how much you buy , not how much you make , and the poor are taxed more percentage wise than a rich person .
A $ 20 shirt with 6 \ % sales tax costs the same if you make $ 10,000 vs if you make $ 1,000,000 .
Income tax is the fair way to go .
* * Commence flames from the other side of the political spectrum * *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just stop using sales tax.
Most states already have income taxes of some kind, it's a simple matter of ratcheting down sales tax until it's eventually zero and ratcheting up income tax.Sales tax is unfair because it's a regressive tax.
It's base on how much you buy, not how much you make, and the poor are taxed more percentage wise than a rich person.
A $20 shirt with 6\% sales tax costs the same if you make $10,000 vs if you make $1,000,000.
Income tax is the fair way to go.
**Commence flames from the other side of the political spectrum**</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134604</id>
	<title>fuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258451580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>politicians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>politicians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134386</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are good...</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1258450920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon isn't using state provided infrastructure, and they already payd for national defense via NATIONAL income taxes.  FedEx or USPS is using said infrastructure, and THEY are paying for it in the states which packages are delivered to.</p><p>And government has been wasting tax dollars for a long time now, so I really don't care that they are crying poor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon is n't using state provided infrastructure , and they already payd for national defense via NATIONAL income taxes .
FedEx or USPS is using said infrastructure , and THEY are paying for it in the states which packages are delivered to.And government has been wasting tax dollars for a long time now , so I really do n't care that they are crying poor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon isn't using state provided infrastructure, and they already payd for national defense via NATIONAL income taxes.
FedEx or USPS is using said infrastructure, and THEY are paying for it in the states which packages are delivered to.And government has been wasting tax dollars for a long time now, so I really don't care that they are crying poor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135930</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes: a good thing?</title>
	<author>meldex</author>
	<datestamp>1258456080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't much in the way of outrage, but outrage may me warranted since if someone else avoids (evades?) taxes it is likely to increase the tax burden on those of us who do pay our taxes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't much in the way of outrage , but outrage may me warranted since if someone else avoids ( evades ?
) taxes it is likely to increase the tax burden on those of us who do pay our taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't much in the way of outrage, but outrage may me warranted since if someone else avoids (evades?
) taxes it is likely to increase the tax burden on those of us who do pay our taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135874</id>
	<title>what's 5\%?</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1258455840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>aside from all the obvious arguments about how all the high taxes are the reason the US/its states can fund all its defense operations, create social programs that make everyone dependents, and create an inventive for corporate control over a political process instead of the liberty that we founded this country on...</p><p>aside from all that, the money I am saving in addition to the convenience really makes the decision for me and now i don't need to drive a car for shopping. that's green.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>aside from all the obvious arguments about how all the high taxes are the reason the US/its states can fund all its defense operations , create social programs that make everyone dependents , and create an inventive for corporate control over a political process instead of the liberty that we founded this country on...aside from all that , the money I am saving in addition to the convenience really makes the decision for me and now i do n't need to drive a car for shopping .
that 's green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>aside from all the obvious arguments about how all the high taxes are the reason the US/its states can fund all its defense operations, create social programs that make everyone dependents, and create an inventive for corporate control over a political process instead of the liberty that we founded this country on...aside from all that, the money I am saving in addition to the convenience really makes the decision for me and now i don't need to drive a car for shopping.
that's green.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133958</id>
	<title>Re:alternative</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1258449480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While you're at it, how about shifting from regressive taxes that people try to avoid like sales tax and bring in all your revenue from taxes that are easy to audit, hard to avoid, and aren't so highly dependent on the whims of the consumer.  If all of our taxes came from taxation on businesses instead of on individuals, we'd have some inflation for a while and would eventually have about the same buying power after taxes, but we wouldn't feel like we were getting screwed by the government.  Instead, we'd feel like we were getting screwed by businesses, and we'd see a serious push for more competition and innovation that would drive our economy forward.</p><p>Further, people making their money off of the hard work of others would be impacted the hardest because they would see lower returns on their stock options.  And people at or near the bottom would have more buying power than they do now, which is good because they're the ones who actually spend money and keep the economy moving.</p><p>I dub this plan "trickle down taxation".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While you 're at it , how about shifting from regressive taxes that people try to avoid like sales tax and bring in all your revenue from taxes that are easy to audit , hard to avoid , and are n't so highly dependent on the whims of the consumer .
If all of our taxes came from taxation on businesses instead of on individuals , we 'd have some inflation for a while and would eventually have about the same buying power after taxes , but we would n't feel like we were getting screwed by the government .
Instead , we 'd feel like we were getting screwed by businesses , and we 'd see a serious push for more competition and innovation that would drive our economy forward.Further , people making their money off of the hard work of others would be impacted the hardest because they would see lower returns on their stock options .
And people at or near the bottom would have more buying power than they do now , which is good because they 're the ones who actually spend money and keep the economy moving.I dub this plan " trickle down taxation " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you're at it, how about shifting from regressive taxes that people try to avoid like sales tax and bring in all your revenue from taxes that are easy to audit, hard to avoid, and aren't so highly dependent on the whims of the consumer.
If all of our taxes came from taxation on businesses instead of on individuals, we'd have some inflation for a while and would eventually have about the same buying power after taxes, but we wouldn't feel like we were getting screwed by the government.
Instead, we'd feel like we were getting screwed by businesses, and we'd see a serious push for more competition and innovation that would drive our economy forward.Further, people making their money off of the hard work of others would be impacted the hardest because they would see lower returns on their stock options.
And people at or near the bottom would have more buying power than they do now, which is good because they're the ones who actually spend money and keep the economy moving.I dub this plan "trickle down taxation".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137748</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258464480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your first claim is simply not true.  As an oregon resident, if I go to california to buy something, I can show my ID, fill out a form and not have to pay sales tax (I have done this before).  And this makes sense, I reside and pay taxes in oregon.  I receive public services and vote in oregon.  I do NOT reside in california, nor do I vote there, so I shouldn't have to pay california taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your first claim is simply not true .
As an oregon resident , if I go to california to buy something , I can show my ID , fill out a form and not have to pay sales tax ( I have done this before ) .
And this makes sense , I reside and pay taxes in oregon .
I receive public services and vote in oregon .
I do NOT reside in california , nor do I vote there , so I should n't have to pay california taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your first claim is simply not true.
As an oregon resident, if I go to california to buy something, I can show my ID, fill out a form and not have to pay sales tax (I have done this before).
And this makes sense, I reside and pay taxes in oregon.
I receive public services and vote in oregon.
I do NOT reside in california, nor do I vote there, so I shouldn't have to pay california taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133944</id>
	<title>wrong</title>
	<author>hypergreatthing</author>
	<datestamp>1258449420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year."<br>Legally due revenue? Isn't this the same argument that the RIAA/MPAA uses?</p><p>What exactly is legally due revenue?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year .
" Legally due revenue ?
Is n't this the same argument that the RIAA/MPAA uses ? What exactly is legally due revenue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year.
"Legally due revenue?
Isn't this the same argument that the RIAA/MPAA uses?What exactly is legally due revenue?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135716</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are good...</title>
	<author>edmicman</author>
	<datestamp>1258455180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is Amazon using state provided infrastructure and defense or services if it has no presence in that state?  It's already going to collect taxes in places where it has a physical presence, just like any other mail-order company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is Amazon using state provided infrastructure and defense or services if it has no presence in that state ?
It 's already going to collect taxes in places where it has a physical presence , just like any other mail-order company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is Amazon using state provided infrastructure and defense or services if it has no presence in that state?
It's already going to collect taxes in places where it has a physical presence, just like any other mail-order company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30145240</id>
	<title>States should cut their taxes</title>
	<author>TonyXL</author>
	<datestamp>1257097680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5\%-10\% price advantage over local retailers, while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year."</p><p>Awwww, poor little politicians getting less money to spread to favored parties.</p><p>States should lower/eliminate sales taxes, so people keep more of their own money instead of it disappearing into a bureaucratic black hole.</p><p>99.9\% of people are against taxation. I know this because if you made taxes optional, no one would pay them.</p><p>Of course the immoral among us are in favor of property confiscation from others by force, that is to say, taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5 \ % -10 \ % price advantage over local retailers , while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year .
" Awwww , poor little politicians getting less money to spread to favored parties.States should lower/eliminate sales taxes , so people keep more of their own money instead of it disappearing into a bureaucratic black hole.99.9 \ % of people are against taxation .
I know this because if you made taxes optional , no one would pay them.Of course the immoral among us are in favor of property confiscation from others by force , that is to say , taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5\%-10\% price advantage over local retailers, while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year.
"Awwww, poor little politicians getting less money to spread to favored parties.States should lower/eliminate sales taxes, so people keep more of their own money instead of it disappearing into a bureaucratic black hole.99.9\% of people are against taxation.
I know this because if you made taxes optional, no one would pay them.Of course the immoral among us are in favor of property confiscation from others by force, that is to say, taxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137838</id>
	<title>Re:Government on the attack</title>
	<author>Harinezumi</author>
	<datestamp>1258465080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I'm going to be separated from the same amount of my hard-earned money either way, I'd rather it occur from as few sources and on as few occasions as possible. So, sure, if I have to pay local taxes, I'd rather have them subtracted from my payroll in one fell swoop and not get nickle and dimed for them each time I reach for my wallet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm going to be separated from the same amount of my hard-earned money either way , I 'd rather it occur from as few sources and on as few occasions as possible .
So , sure , if I have to pay local taxes , I 'd rather have them subtracted from my payroll in one fell swoop and not get nickle and dimed for them each time I reach for my wallet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm going to be separated from the same amount of my hard-earned money either way, I'd rather it occur from as few sources and on as few occasions as possible.
So, sure, if I have to pay local taxes, I'd rather have them subtracted from my payroll in one fell swoop and not get nickle and dimed for them each time I reach for my wallet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134852</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are neither good nor bad...</title>
	<author>coolgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1258452360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This legislation is about consolidating power for the large retailers and squeezing out the small guys.  Sales tax is not just paid on a state-by-state basis.  It is also county-by-county and city-by-city.  I recently discovered that Alaska has no sales/use tax, but certain villages in Alaska do.  So, if I ship something to Sitka AK, I would hypothetically need to write a check to the City of Sitka.</p><p>In California, when I send a check to the State Board of Equalization for our CA internet sales, they know what percentage to give to the state, the county and the city based on my account number.  That's because the taxable nexus is on the point of origin.</p><p>Moving the nexus to the destination creates a massive accounting burden.  Either the retailer ends up sending a check to every state, every count, and every city that they sold to, or they send one check to the state authority with a table describing the amounts collected for each of the different destinations.  I don't think these guys are even thinking about this, probably the state tax authorities wish to usurp taxes due local governments and collect it all for themselves.</p><p>I believe this entire concept actually interferes with interstate commerce, and isn't there some act that prevents states from doing exactly that?  The states should up their enforcement of use tax collection.  Through audits and stiff penalties, they can ensure compliance.  Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This legislation is about consolidating power for the large retailers and squeezing out the small guys .
Sales tax is not just paid on a state-by-state basis .
It is also county-by-county and city-by-city .
I recently discovered that Alaska has no sales/use tax , but certain villages in Alaska do .
So , if I ship something to Sitka AK , I would hypothetically need to write a check to the City of Sitka.In California , when I send a check to the State Board of Equalization for our CA internet sales , they know what percentage to give to the state , the county and the city based on my account number .
That 's because the taxable nexus is on the point of origin.Moving the nexus to the destination creates a massive accounting burden .
Either the retailer ends up sending a check to every state , every count , and every city that they sold to , or they send one check to the state authority with a table describing the amounts collected for each of the different destinations .
I do n't think these guys are even thinking about this , probably the state tax authorities wish to usurp taxes due local governments and collect it all for themselves.I believe this entire concept actually interferes with interstate commerce , and is n't there some act that prevents states from doing exactly that ?
The states should up their enforcement of use tax collection .
Through audits and stiff penalties , they can ensure compliance .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This legislation is about consolidating power for the large retailers and squeezing out the small guys.
Sales tax is not just paid on a state-by-state basis.
It is also county-by-county and city-by-city.
I recently discovered that Alaska has no sales/use tax, but certain villages in Alaska do.
So, if I ship something to Sitka AK, I would hypothetically need to write a check to the City of Sitka.In California, when I send a check to the State Board of Equalization for our CA internet sales, they know what percentage to give to the state, the county and the city based on my account number.
That's because the taxable nexus is on the point of origin.Moving the nexus to the destination creates a massive accounting burden.
Either the retailer ends up sending a check to every state, every count, and every city that they sold to, or they send one check to the state authority with a table describing the amounts collected for each of the different destinations.
I don't think these guys are even thinking about this, probably the state tax authorities wish to usurp taxes due local governments and collect it all for themselves.I believe this entire concept actually interferes with interstate commerce, and isn't there some act that prevents states from doing exactly that?
The states should up their enforcement of use tax collection.
Through audits and stiff penalties, they can ensure compliance.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134312</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, taxes, taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258450680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>alaska receives $1.84 back from the government for each $1 of tax it sends to washington.  i'll bet there's some caveat for each of your other examples too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>alaska receives $ 1.84 back from the government for each $ 1 of tax it sends to washington .
i 'll bet there 's some caveat for each of your other examples too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>alaska receives $1.84 back from the government for each $1 of tax it sends to washington.
i'll bet there's some caveat for each of your other examples too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636</id>
	<title>Taxes are good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258448460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there is an article about virtues of taxes on Slashdot, you can bet, it was posted by kdawson...

</p><p>Just saying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is an article about virtues of taxes on Slashdot , you can bet , it was posted by kdawson.. . Just saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is an article about virtues of taxes on Slashdot, you can bet, it was posted by kdawson...

Just saying...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135644</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Synthlight</author>
	<datestamp>1258454940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I buy something from a merchant California, you want me to pay sales taxes to California.  So, suddenly I'm a taxpayer of California, but what services is the state government providing me?  Roads, police, fire department, schools?</p></div><p>The state (CA) is providing the infrastructure for the merchant, its warehouse, and its ability to ship to you. You may not drive on CA's roads directly but you are paying the merchant to pay a shipper (USPS, FEDEX, etc.) to drive on those roads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I buy something from a merchant California , you want me to pay sales taxes to California .
So , suddenly I 'm a taxpayer of California , but what services is the state government providing me ?
Roads , police , fire department , schools ? The state ( CA ) is providing the infrastructure for the merchant , its warehouse , and its ability to ship to you .
You may not drive on CA 's roads directly but you are paying the merchant to pay a shipper ( USPS , FEDEX , etc .
) to drive on those roads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I buy something from a merchant California, you want me to pay sales taxes to California.
So, suddenly I'm a taxpayer of California, but what services is the state government providing me?
Roads, police, fire department, schools?The state (CA) is providing the infrastructure for the merchant, its warehouse, and its ability to ship to you.
You may not drive on CA's roads directly but you are paying the merchant to pay a shipper (USPS, FEDEX, etc.
) to drive on those roads.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136456</id>
	<title>Re:Mazerov can bite me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258458300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, I live there, no meteors!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I live there , no meteors !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I live there, no meteors!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134482</id>
	<title>Re:alternative</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1258451220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How about cutting spending</i></p><p>Okay, where would you begin?</p><p>Let's just get rid of Public Health altogether.  Never mind it's *far* cheaper to have public health services than not.<br>How about law enforcement?  Second Amendment is all I need.<br>How about Welfare?  Those lazy SOB's need to get to work.<br>How about Child Services?  Kids are young.  The sooner they learn to be on their own the better.<br>How about jails?  Stack em' higher!</p><p>Finally, the culture of 'starving the beast' *never* works.  Why?  Because the 'starve the beast' advocates have their own pet publicly-funded projects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about cutting spendingOkay , where would you begin ? Let 's just get rid of Public Health altogether .
Never mind it 's * far * cheaper to have public health services than not.How about law enforcement ?
Second Amendment is all I need.How about Welfare ?
Those lazy SOB 's need to get to work.How about Child Services ?
Kids are young .
The sooner they learn to be on their own the better.How about jails ?
Stack em ' higher ! Finally , the culture of 'starving the beast ' * never * works .
Why ? Because the 'starve the beast ' advocates have their own pet publicly-funded projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about cutting spendingOkay, where would you begin?Let's just get rid of Public Health altogether.
Never mind it's *far* cheaper to have public health services than not.How about law enforcement?
Second Amendment is all I need.How about Welfare?
Those lazy SOB's need to get to work.How about Child Services?
Kids are young.
The sooner they learn to be on their own the better.How about jails?
Stack em' higher!Finally, the culture of 'starving the beast' *never* works.
Why?  Because the 'starve the beast' advocates have their own pet publicly-funded projects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30142098</id>
	<title>Taxes are tied to physical location</title>
	<author>paragon1</author>
	<datestamp>1257082140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has been a gray area for a long time now.  Since taxes are tied to physical locations, the Internet has always been problematic in that it is (more or less) all encompassing.</p><p>I do agree that this looks like more of the "rich taking from the poor" again.  Most online purchases are small, as in, in the realm of a few hundred dollars or less.  In the future I could see taxes being collected on large purchases, say, for those totaling $1000 or more, but getting tied up in taxing micro-transactions is often more trouble than its worth.</p><p>I think the primary reason this hasn't been a bigger issue is because e-commerce in general has been a huge cash cow for lots of businesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been a gray area for a long time now .
Since taxes are tied to physical locations , the Internet has always been problematic in that it is ( more or less ) all encompassing.I do agree that this looks like more of the " rich taking from the poor " again .
Most online purchases are small , as in , in the realm of a few hundred dollars or less .
In the future I could see taxes being collected on large purchases , say , for those totaling $ 1000 or more , but getting tied up in taxing micro-transactions is often more trouble than its worth.I think the primary reason this has n't been a bigger issue is because e-commerce in general has been a huge cash cow for lots of businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been a gray area for a long time now.
Since taxes are tied to physical locations, the Internet has always been problematic in that it is (more or less) all encompassing.I do agree that this looks like more of the "rich taking from the poor" again.
Most online purchases are small, as in, in the realm of a few hundred dollars or less.
In the future I could see taxes being collected on large purchases, say, for those totaling $1000 or more, but getting tied up in taxing micro-transactions is often more trouble than its worth.I think the primary reason this hasn't been a bigger issue is because e-commerce in general has been a huge cash cow for lots of businesses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133780</id>
	<title>Amazon vs. Pirate Bay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258448940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year</p></div></blockquote><p>Paying sales-tax is the <em>buyer's</em> responsibility. The seller is merely charged with helping the State <em>collect</em>. I find it worryingly hypocritical of kdawson &mdash; and people like him &mdash; to accuse retailers like Amazon of "depriving" States of sales taxes, while defending pirate bays and napsters against charges of piracy, in which the end-users engage.

</p><p>Maybe, this is because Amazon's stand harms the Government, while the napsters harm private enterprise?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each yearPaying sales-tax is the buyer 's responsibility .
The seller is merely charged with helping the State collect .
I find it worryingly hypocritical of kdawson    and people like him    to accuse retailers like Amazon of " depriving " States of sales taxes , while defending pirate bays and napsters against charges of piracy , in which the end-users engage .
Maybe , this is because Amazon 's stand harms the Government , while the napsters harm private enterprise ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each yearPaying sales-tax is the buyer's responsibility.
The seller is merely charged with helping the State collect.
I find it worryingly hypocritical of kdawson — and people like him — to accuse retailers like Amazon of "depriving" States of sales taxes, while defending pirate bays and napsters against charges of piracy, in which the end-users engage.
Maybe, this is because Amazon's stand harms the Government, while the napsters harm private enterprise?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134518</id>
	<title>Re:States should fix this in their own laws</title>
	<author>secretcurse</author>
	<datestamp>1258451340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, you're saying it's fair to charge one person more than another when they buy a shirt based on how much money they earn?  How is that fair?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , you 're saying it 's fair to charge one person more than another when they buy a shirt based on how much money they earn ?
How is that fair ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, you're saying it's fair to charge one person more than another when they buy a shirt based on how much money they earn?
How is that fair?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139102</id>
	<title>Re:alternative</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1258474980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a mentality that says they are entitled to these tax dollars.  You can hear it all the time -- it's reflected directly whenever a politician speaks of "lost tax revenue" or a "tax shortfall".</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a mentality that says they are entitled to these tax dollars .
You can hear it all the time -- it 's reflected directly whenever a politician speaks of " lost tax revenue " or a " tax shortfall " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a mentality that says they are entitled to these tax dollars.
You can hear it all the time -- it's reflected directly whenever a politician speaks of "lost tax revenue" or a "tax shortfall".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135256</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258453740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My argument against, is that we do not NEED more taxation. Taxation simply for taxation, more money, is a stupid argument. We tax, cause we can<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>The whole purpose of taxation is to provide funds to the government to support a public service. Guess what? Government doesn't provide a service there. It's already been paid several times over. Internet Access? Taxed. State Business License? Taxed. Building fees? Taxed. Power Fees? Taxed. Business Income? Taxed.</p><p>At most, it should be kept State and Federal segregation. In State purchases are taxed at State levels. Entities operating in more than one state are taxed at a Federal level. Individual state sales take precedence where entities exist, over Federal. Of course the Federal Government hates being 2nd at anything, so they'd prefer priority over State Income, which is ridiculous cause it will go back to the states for funding anyways. You end up doubling the workload at that point. Efficiency should be god at this point.</p><p>Then there's the whole argument about how the Government distributes the taxes that it already collects. We have enough pork projects, misappropriations, and over-appropriation as it is. Giving the Government more money from taxation is just shooting ourselves in the foot, and asking for more bullets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My argument against , is that we do not NEED more taxation .
Taxation simply for taxation , more money , is a stupid argument .
We tax , cause we can ...The whole purpose of taxation is to provide funds to the government to support a public service .
Guess what ?
Government does n't provide a service there .
It 's already been paid several times over .
Internet Access ?
Taxed. State Business License ?
Taxed. Building fees ?
Taxed. Power Fees ?
Taxed. Business Income ?
Taxed.At most , it should be kept State and Federal segregation .
In State purchases are taxed at State levels .
Entities operating in more than one state are taxed at a Federal level .
Individual state sales take precedence where entities exist , over Federal .
Of course the Federal Government hates being 2nd at anything , so they 'd prefer priority over State Income , which is ridiculous cause it will go back to the states for funding anyways .
You end up doubling the workload at that point .
Efficiency should be god at this point.Then there 's the whole argument about how the Government distributes the taxes that it already collects .
We have enough pork projects , misappropriations , and over-appropriation as it is .
Giving the Government more money from taxation is just shooting ourselves in the foot , and asking for more bullets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My argument against, is that we do not NEED more taxation.
Taxation simply for taxation, more money, is a stupid argument.
We tax, cause we can ...The whole purpose of taxation is to provide funds to the government to support a public service.
Guess what?
Government doesn't provide a service there.
It's already been paid several times over.
Internet Access?
Taxed. State Business License?
Taxed. Building fees?
Taxed. Power Fees?
Taxed. Business Income?
Taxed.At most, it should be kept State and Federal segregation.
In State purchases are taxed at State levels.
Entities operating in more than one state are taxed at a Federal level.
Individual state sales take precedence where entities exist, over Federal.
Of course the Federal Government hates being 2nd at anything, so they'd prefer priority over State Income, which is ridiculous cause it will go back to the states for funding anyways.
You end up doubling the workload at that point.
Efficiency should be god at this point.Then there's the whole argument about how the Government distributes the taxes that it already collects.
We have enough pork projects, misappropriations, and over-appropriation as it is.
Giving the Government more money from taxation is just shooting ourselves in the foot, and asking for more bullets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134648</id>
	<title>God bless New Hampshire!</title>
	<author>axl917</author>
	<datestamp>1258451760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No income or sales tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No income or sales tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No income or sales tax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134886</id>
	<title>This is where I call B.S. on the article...</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1258452480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...when the company fails to support public services in most of the states in which it does have a physical presence..."</p><p>O really? So those physically present businesses aren't paying property taxes and all kinds of taxes related to operating a business?</p><p>GTFO.  I gotta see proof of them actually evading these taxes before I'm about o believe this junk.  I would safely assume that if they have a physically present business, they are paying taxes there in one way or another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...when the company fails to support public services in most of the states in which it does have a physical presence... " O really ?
So those physically present businesses are n't paying property taxes and all kinds of taxes related to operating a business ? GTFO .
I got ta see proof of them actually evading these taxes before I 'm about o believe this junk .
I would safely assume that if they have a physically present business , they are paying taxes there in one way or another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...when the company fails to support public services in most of the states in which it does have a physical presence..."O really?
So those physically present businesses aren't paying property taxes and all kinds of taxes related to operating a business?GTFO.
I gotta see proof of them actually evading these taxes before I'm about o believe this junk.
I would safely assume that if they have a physically present business, they are paying taxes there in one way or another.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135008</id>
	<title>Shiping versus sales tax</title>
	<author>Nickodeemus</author>
	<datestamp>1258452960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>when I have to pay sales tax in addition to shipping, i will instead go to the local Borders, Barnes &amp; Noble, etc. and get instant gratification instead of the best price. Amazon is only one online reseller I use but all of them will lose out when this sales tax enforcement comes to pass.
<br> <br>
The ones who will hurt most with this are the small businesses who currently have a [inter]national presence via the web. Where is their advantage when this happens? Or rather, how can they compete at all with the big dogs once this is enacted? Corporatism at its best.</htmltext>
<tokenext>when I have to pay sales tax in addition to shipping , i will instead go to the local Borders , Barnes &amp; Noble , etc .
and get instant gratification instead of the best price .
Amazon is only one online reseller I use but all of them will lose out when this sales tax enforcement comes to pass .
The ones who will hurt most with this are the small businesses who currently have a [ inter ] national presence via the web .
Where is their advantage when this happens ?
Or rather , how can they compete at all with the big dogs once this is enacted ?
Corporatism at its best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when I have to pay sales tax in addition to shipping, i will instead go to the local Borders, Barnes &amp; Noble, etc.
and get instant gratification instead of the best price.
Amazon is only one online reseller I use but all of them will lose out when this sales tax enforcement comes to pass.
The ones who will hurt most with this are the small businesses who currently have a [inter]national presence via the web.
Where is their advantage when this happens?
Or rather, how can they compete at all with the big dogs once this is enacted?
Corporatism at its best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136192</id>
	<title>Re:Mazerov can bite me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258457280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taxes in the Canadian Maritimes are higher than 10\%, thanks to a harmonized system for local and federal taxes (PST + GST = HST).  Amazon.ca doesn't seem to have a problem differentiating between those Provinces and us out west that may or may not have local sales tax. Everything has GST, until they finally start selling products that are exempt.<br>Programatically, what's the performance difference in calculating a dozen provinces versus 50 states?  Or is there paperwork involved? *gasp* Savages.</p><p>Maybe Amazon.com could relocate to New Hampshire?  Could put a few politicians with 'live free or cheap" mindsets in their pocket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxes in the Canadian Maritimes are higher than 10 \ % , thanks to a harmonized system for local and federal taxes ( PST + GST = HST ) .
Amazon.ca does n't seem to have a problem differentiating between those Provinces and us out west that may or may not have local sales tax .
Everything has GST , until they finally start selling products that are exempt.Programatically , what 's the performance difference in calculating a dozen provinces versus 50 states ?
Or is there paperwork involved ?
* gasp * Savages.Maybe Amazon.com could relocate to New Hampshire ?
Could put a few politicians with 'live free or cheap " mindsets in their pocket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxes in the Canadian Maritimes are higher than 10\%, thanks to a harmonized system for local and federal taxes (PST + GST = HST).
Amazon.ca doesn't seem to have a problem differentiating between those Provinces and us out west that may or may not have local sales tax.
Everything has GST, until they finally start selling products that are exempt.Programatically, what's the performance difference in calculating a dozen provinces versus 50 states?
Or is there paperwork involved?
*gasp* Savages.Maybe Amazon.com could relocate to New Hampshire?
Could put a few politicians with 'live free or cheap" mindsets in their pocket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258449240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Amazon wants to use state provided infrastructure and national defense, they should pay their share of the financial burden.  If they feel entitled to pay no tax, they shouldn't be allowed to utilize any services provided by that tax.  Some things are necessarily funded through a tax such as police, fire and defense, it is only when the government starts tacking on wasteful spending projects that taxes really become a major problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Amazon wants to use state provided infrastructure and national defense , they should pay their share of the financial burden .
If they feel entitled to pay no tax , they should n't be allowed to utilize any services provided by that tax .
Some things are necessarily funded through a tax such as police , fire and defense , it is only when the government starts tacking on wasteful spending projects that taxes really become a major problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Amazon wants to use state provided infrastructure and national defense, they should pay their share of the financial burden.
If they feel entitled to pay no tax, they shouldn't be allowed to utilize any services provided by that tax.
Some things are necessarily funded through a tax such as police, fire and defense, it is only when the government starts tacking on wasteful spending projects that taxes really become a major problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134080</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1258449900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was wondering the same thing. Every online retailer does the same thing, they charge sales tax in states where they have a presence and not in those they don't. How is Amazon any different?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering the same thing .
Every online retailer does the same thing , they charge sales tax in states where they have a presence and not in those they do n't .
How is Amazon any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering the same thing.
Every online retailer does the same thing, they charge sales tax in states where they have a presence and not in those they don't.
How is Amazon any different?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134792</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Experiment 626</author>
	<datestamp>1258452180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I buy something from a merchant California, you want me to pay sales taxes to California.  So, suddenly I'm a taxpayer of California, but what services is the state government providing me?  Roads, police, fire department, schools?  Seems like it would be difficult to provide those things for people who live far outside the state, but if California is providing me with squat, the social contract rationale for why they are entitled to my money kind of falls apart.  Do I at least get to vote in California elections, or is your plan also a call for more taxation without representation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I buy something from a merchant California , you want me to pay sales taxes to California .
So , suddenly I 'm a taxpayer of California , but what services is the state government providing me ?
Roads , police , fire department , schools ?
Seems like it would be difficult to provide those things for people who live far outside the state , but if California is providing me with squat , the social contract rationale for why they are entitled to my money kind of falls apart .
Do I at least get to vote in California elections , or is your plan also a call for more taxation without representation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I buy something from a merchant California, you want me to pay sales taxes to California.
So, suddenly I'm a taxpayer of California, but what services is the state government providing me?
Roads, police, fire department, schools?
Seems like it would be difficult to provide those things for people who live far outside the state, but if California is providing me with squat, the social contract rationale for why they are entitled to my money kind of falls apart.
Do I at least get to vote in California elections, or is your plan also a call for more taxation without representation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135998</id>
	<title>taxes are evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258456440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't care about the legal technicalities. Mazerov is an evil jerk for arguing against Amazon, and the entire tax-structure is just thinly veiled robbery. It is all evil -- sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. It is allegedly justified by the non-sense of the "social contract", a very weak justification which has been thoroughly rebuked by Lysander Spooner and others. What it really is is just an argument of "might makes right". The bums in the government have done nothing to earn my money; if they did something worthwhile, they should ask for voluntary contributions, or sell services to the market, like hard-working people in other fields. All that they do is legislate the use of force, and have brutes enforce their will. Very similar to mafia bosses, except that mafia bosses and common robbers don't pretend that they are righteous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't care about the legal technicalities .
Mazerov is an evil jerk for arguing against Amazon , and the entire tax-structure is just thinly veiled robbery .
It is all evil -- sales taxes , property taxes , income taxes , capital gains taxes , etc .
It is allegedly justified by the non-sense of the " social contract " , a very weak justification which has been thoroughly rebuked by Lysander Spooner and others .
What it really is is just an argument of " might makes right " .
The bums in the government have done nothing to earn my money ; if they did something worthwhile , they should ask for voluntary contributions , or sell services to the market , like hard-working people in other fields .
All that they do is legislate the use of force , and have brutes enforce their will .
Very similar to mafia bosses , except that mafia bosses and common robbers do n't pretend that they are righteous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't care about the legal technicalities.
Mazerov is an evil jerk for arguing against Amazon, and the entire tax-structure is just thinly veiled robbery.
It is all evil -- sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.
It is allegedly justified by the non-sense of the "social contract", a very weak justification which has been thoroughly rebuked by Lysander Spooner and others.
What it really is is just an argument of "might makes right".
The bums in the government have done nothing to earn my money; if they did something worthwhile, they should ask for voluntary contributions, or sell services to the market, like hard-working people in other fields.
All that they do is legislate the use of force, and have brutes enforce their will.
Very similar to mafia bosses, except that mafia bosses and common robbers don't pretend that they are righteous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134724</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>drumcat</author>
	<datestamp>1258451940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are all companies headquartered in Delaware?  Same reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are all companies headquartered in Delaware ?
Same reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are all companies headquartered in Delaware?
Same reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134344</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1258450740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know! I hate how your government tells all large businesses where to build their operations and states can't compete for business interests with infrastructure, building costs, property tax, labor costs, and subsidies.
<br> <br>
You should move to the U.S. though, states compete for business interests all the time there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know !
I hate how your government tells all large businesses where to build their operations and states ca n't compete for business interests with infrastructure , building costs , property tax , labor costs , and subsidies .
You should move to the U.S. though , states compete for business interests all the time there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know!
I hate how your government tells all large businesses where to build their operations and states can't compete for business interests with infrastructure, building costs, property tax, labor costs, and subsidies.
You should move to the U.S. though, states compete for business interests all the time there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135018</id>
	<title>Taxation is Theft</title>
	<author>MrSnivvel</author>
	<datestamp>1258452960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taxation is Theft.  Pure and simple.</p><p> <a href="http://mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp" title="mises.org">http://mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp</a> [mises.org] </p><p>I'll leave the statists here to justify their servitude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxation is Theft .
Pure and simple .
http : //mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp [ mises.org ] I 'll leave the statists here to justify their servitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxation is Theft.
Pure and simple.
http://mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp [mises.org] I'll leave the statists here to justify their servitude.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660</id>
	<title>Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258448520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Calling B.S. On Amazon's Taxation Arguments</p></div><p>Who the hell cares what Amazon claims?  If you think it should be taxed, write your representatives and demand they <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet\_Tax\_Freedom\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">do something about the bill that's been renewed through 2014</a> [wikipedia.org].  <br> <br>

And why are we singling out Amazon?  Why not Dell or Newegg or even ThinkGeek?  Is it because Amazon is doing too well?  <br> <br>

Things just don't add up in Mazerov's posting.  He levels charges that sound trivial to prove and prosecute--charges that would result in a lot of back taxes paid to a state.  Why doesn't he call one of his colleagues up in any of these states and give them all they need to make a name for themselves?  The only reason I can think of is that it's a not a cut and dry clear win for the state.  Or there are simply too many companies they'd need to prosecute alongside Amazon -- like Best Buy or Walmart who have a presence in every state and run an e-commerce site.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Calling B.S .
On Amazon 's Taxation ArgumentsWho the hell cares what Amazon claims ?
If you think it should be taxed , write your representatives and demand they do something about the bill that 's been renewed through 2014 [ wikipedia.org ] .
And why are we singling out Amazon ?
Why not Dell or Newegg or even ThinkGeek ?
Is it because Amazon is doing too well ?
Things just do n't add up in Mazerov 's posting .
He levels charges that sound trivial to prove and prosecute--charges that would result in a lot of back taxes paid to a state .
Why does n't he call one of his colleagues up in any of these states and give them all they need to make a name for themselves ?
The only reason I can think of is that it 's a not a cut and dry clear win for the state .
Or there are simply too many companies they 'd need to prosecute alongside Amazon -- like Best Buy or Walmart who have a presence in every state and run an e-commerce site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Calling B.S.
On Amazon's Taxation ArgumentsWho the hell cares what Amazon claims?
If you think it should be taxed, write your representatives and demand they do something about the bill that's been renewed through 2014 [wikipedia.org].
And why are we singling out Amazon?
Why not Dell or Newegg or even ThinkGeek?
Is it because Amazon is doing too well?
Things just don't add up in Mazerov's posting.
He levels charges that sound trivial to prove and prosecute--charges that would result in a lot of back taxes paid to a state.
Why doesn't he call one of his colleagues up in any of these states and give them all they need to make a name for themselves?
The only reason I can think of is that it's a not a cut and dry clear win for the state.
Or there are simply too many companies they'd need to prosecute alongside Amazon -- like Best Buy or Walmart who have a presence in every state and run an e-commerce site.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135708</id>
	<title>Re:United Kingdom</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1258455180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There are certain categories of product in the UK that Amazon must charge VAT and then pay that to the Gov; if they can do it here - and elsewhere in Europe - why not in the US?</i></p><p>There is some explicit stuff in the US constitution that forbids the US Fed from interfering with the state revenue process and cannot tax state revenue.</p><p>Also it isn't allowed to raise taxes on behalf of states on interstate commerce... It can however tax corps and citizens directly and give the states money out of its pocket.</p><p>As some states do not have sales tax, it may be a problematic thing for the Fed to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are certain categories of product in the UK that Amazon must charge VAT and then pay that to the Gov ; if they can do it here - and elsewhere in Europe - why not in the US ? There is some explicit stuff in the US constitution that forbids the US Fed from interfering with the state revenue process and can not tax state revenue.Also it is n't allowed to raise taxes on behalf of states on interstate commerce... It can however tax corps and citizens directly and give the states money out of its pocket.As some states do not have sales tax , it may be a problematic thing for the Fed to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are certain categories of product in the UK that Amazon must charge VAT and then pay that to the Gov; if they can do it here - and elsewhere in Europe - why not in the US?There is some explicit stuff in the US constitution that forbids the US Fed from interfering with the state revenue process and cannot tax state revenue.Also it isn't allowed to raise taxes on behalf of states on interstate commerce... It can however tax corps and citizens directly and give the states money out of its pocket.As some states do not have sales tax, it may be a problematic thing for the Fed to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133708</id>
	<title>fuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258448640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>taxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136412</id>
	<title>The Pesky Part</title>
	<author>kilodelta</author>
	<datestamp>1258458120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uniform Commercial Code pretty much says that only the Federal Government has the power to tax interstate commerce. Most states get around this by calling it a use tax which I thoroughly disagree with the concept.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uniform Commercial Code pretty much says that only the Federal Government has the power to tax interstate commerce .
Most states get around this by calling it a use tax which I thoroughly disagree with the concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uniform Commercial Code pretty much says that only the Federal Government has the power to tax interstate commerce.
Most states get around this by calling it a use tax which I thoroughly disagree with the concept.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135284</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon vs. Pirate Bay</title>
	<author>jdgeorge</author>
	<datestamp>1258453800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each year</p></div></blockquote><p>Paying sales-tax is the <em>buyer's</em> responsibility. The seller is merely charged with helping the State <em>collect</em>. I find it worryingly hypocritical of kdawson &mdash; and people like him &mdash; to accuse retailers like Amazon of "depriving" States of sales taxes, while defending pirate bays and napsters against charges of piracy, in which the end-users engage.</p><p>Maybe, this is because Amazon's stand harms the Government, while the napsters harm private enterprise?</p></div><p>Dude... far as I can tell, this summary was written by someone named "theodp", and the person describing Amazon as "depriving" states of money is named "Mazerov".</p><p>That said, it seems to me the problem is there are too many hands trying to collect sales taxes. Is there any reason anyone other than the state government should be allowed to collect sales tax? Local governments can levy other kinds of taxes, but it sounds as if the idea that every level of government can collect taxes for exactly the same thing is basically obsolete.</p><p>How's this for a modest proposal: Only a state government has the power to levy sales tax.</p><p>And since every modest proposal needs a crazy part: For purchases that are shipped, taxes are levied based on the location to which the goods are shipped.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each yearPaying sales-tax is the buyer 's responsibility .
The seller is merely charged with helping the State collect .
I find it worryingly hypocritical of kdawson    and people like him    to accuse retailers like Amazon of " depriving " States of sales taxes , while defending pirate bays and napsters against charges of piracy , in which the end-users engage.Maybe , this is because Amazon 's stand harms the Government , while the napsters harm private enterprise ? Dude... far as I can tell , this summary was written by someone named " theodp " , and the person describing Amazon as " depriving " states of money is named " Mazerov " .That said , it seems to me the problem is there are too many hands trying to collect sales taxes .
Is there any reason anyone other than the state government should be allowed to collect sales tax ?
Local governments can levy other kinds of taxes , but it sounds as if the idea that every level of government can collect taxes for exactly the same thing is basically obsolete.How 's this for a modest proposal : Only a state government has the power to levy sales tax.And since every modest proposal needs a crazy part : For purchases that are shipped , taxes are levied based on the location to which the goods are shipped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while also depriving states and localities of hundreds of millions of dollars of legally due revenue each yearPaying sales-tax is the buyer's responsibility.
The seller is merely charged with helping the State collect.
I find it worryingly hypocritical of kdawson — and people like him — to accuse retailers like Amazon of "depriving" States of sales taxes, while defending pirate bays and napsters against charges of piracy, in which the end-users engage.Maybe, this is because Amazon's stand harms the Government, while the napsters harm private enterprise?Dude... far as I can tell, this summary was written by someone named "theodp", and the person describing Amazon as "depriving" states of money is named "Mazerov".That said, it seems to me the problem is there are too many hands trying to collect sales taxes.
Is there any reason anyone other than the state government should be allowed to collect sales tax?
Local governments can levy other kinds of taxes, but it sounds as if the idea that every level of government can collect taxes for exactly the same thing is basically obsolete.How's this for a modest proposal: Only a state government has the power to levy sales tax.And since every modest proposal needs a crazy part: For purchases that are shipped, taxes are levied based on the location to which the goods are shipped.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135840</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258455720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you bought something in California or from a Cali business, then you benefit from a whole slew of services provided by the Cali government: peace and prosperity, an educated population, healthy workers, roads that brought you or UPS to and from the store, and myriad others. You can't possibly be so daft as to think that just because California doesn't pick up you trash once a week means you don't benefit directly and indirectly from California services, so I won't accuse you of such idiocy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you bought something in California or from a Cali business , then you benefit from a whole slew of services provided by the Cali government : peace and prosperity , an educated population , healthy workers , roads that brought you or UPS to and from the store , and myriad others .
You ca n't possibly be so daft as to think that just because California does n't pick up you trash once a week means you do n't benefit directly and indirectly from California services , so I wo n't accuse you of such idiocy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you bought something in California or from a Cali business, then you benefit from a whole slew of services provided by the Cali government: peace and prosperity, an educated population, healthy workers, roads that brought you or UPS to and from the store, and myriad others.
You can't possibly be so daft as to think that just because California doesn't pick up you trash once a week means you don't benefit directly and indirectly from California services, so I won't accuse you of such idiocy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135774</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1258455420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; Who the hell cares what Amazon claims? If you think it should be taxed, write your representatives and demand they do something about the bill that's been renewed through 2014.</p><p>Please read your link:</p><p>"Contrary to popular belief, it does not exempt sales made on the internet as they will be taxed at the same rate as non-Internet sales just like mail order sales. The Act did not repeal any state sales or use tax."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Who the hell cares what Amazon claims ?
If you think it should be taxed , write your representatives and demand they do something about the bill that 's been renewed through 2014.Please read your link : " Contrary to popular belief , it does not exempt sales made on the internet as they will be taxed at the same rate as non-Internet sales just like mail order sales .
The Act did not repeal any state sales or use tax .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Who the hell cares what Amazon claims?
If you think it should be taxed, write your representatives and demand they do something about the bill that's been renewed through 2014.Please read your link:"Contrary to popular belief, it does not exempt sales made on the internet as they will be taxed at the same rate as non-Internet sales just like mail order sales.
The Act did not repeal any state sales or use tax.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134052</id>
	<title>Good for them, whatever their excuse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258449780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Politicians, at all levels of government have been nothing but recklessly irresponsible with all the Other Peoples' Money they keep taking, then rgwt go ahead and cite their deficits as an excuse to take more.</p><p>Bureaucrats are just looking for more easy marks to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Politicians , at all levels of government have been nothing but recklessly irresponsible with all the Other Peoples ' Money they keep taking , then rgwt go ahead and cite their deficits as an excuse to take more.Bureaucrats are just looking for more easy marks to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politicians, at all levels of government have been nothing but recklessly irresponsible with all the Other Peoples' Money they keep taking, then rgwt go ahead and cite their deficits as an excuse to take more.Bureaucrats are just looking for more easy marks to work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135386</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with "legal" taxation</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1258454160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish there would be another tea party, I really do.</p><p>Unfortunately all the 'Indians' are now occupying unwanted land, so it isn't likely to happen.  In case you didn't know, there was more than just taxation going on during that time, and the people in America had a lot of motivation to change things.  Not all of them were pure motives, but it spurred them into action all the same.</p><p>And before you put forward that Indians had nothing to do with it, please take note of the costumes the patriots wore to their party...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish there would be another tea party , I really do.Unfortunately all the 'Indians ' are now occupying unwanted land , so it is n't likely to happen .
In case you did n't know , there was more than just taxation going on during that time , and the people in America had a lot of motivation to change things .
Not all of them were pure motives , but it spurred them into action all the same.And before you put forward that Indians had nothing to do with it , please take note of the costumes the patriots wore to their party.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish there would be another tea party, I really do.Unfortunately all the 'Indians' are now occupying unwanted land, so it isn't likely to happen.
In case you didn't know, there was more than just taxation going on during that time, and the people in America had a lot of motivation to change things.
Not all of them were pure motives, but it spurred them into action all the same.And before you put forward that Indians had nothing to do with it, please take note of the costumes the patriots wore to their party...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134076</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1258449840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From your link:</p><blockquote><div><p>Contrary to popular belief, <b>it does not exempt sales made on the internet as they will be taxed at the same rate as non-Internet sales</b> just like mail order sales. The Act did not repeal any state sales or use tax.</p></div></blockquote><p> Emphasis mine.  That piece of legislation has nothing to do with this story.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From your link : Contrary to popular belief , it does not exempt sales made on the internet as they will be taxed at the same rate as non-Internet sales just like mail order sales .
The Act did not repeal any state sales or use tax .
Emphasis mine .
That piece of legislation has nothing to do with this story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From your link:Contrary to popular belief, it does not exempt sales made on the internet as they will be taxed at the same rate as non-Internet sales just like mail order sales.
The Act did not repeal any state sales or use tax.
Emphasis mine.
That piece of legislation has nothing to do with this story.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134292</id>
	<title>Re:Legally due</title>
	<author>bws111</author>
	<datestamp>1258450620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>'Legally due' makes it sound like Amazon is being taxed.  That is not what this is about.  This is about collecting taxes from the residents of a state when they purchase something, and forwarding that to the state.  The residents (of some states anyway) are supposed to pay this even if Amazon doesn't collect it, but many don't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Legally due ' makes it sound like Amazon is being taxed .
That is not what this is about .
This is about collecting taxes from the residents of a state when they purchase something , and forwarding that to the state .
The residents ( of some states anyway ) are supposed to pay this even if Amazon does n't collect it , but many do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Legally due' makes it sound like Amazon is being taxed.
That is not what this is about.
This is about collecting taxes from the residents of a state when they purchase something, and forwarding that to the state.
The residents (of some states anyway) are supposed to pay this even if Amazon doesn't collect it, but many don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134552</id>
	<title>Let them pay sales tax then where they have HQ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258451400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..oh, that's in Delaware, which HAS no sales tax. Nevertheless that is where they do business...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..oh , that 's in Delaware , which HAS no sales tax .
Nevertheless that is where they do business.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..oh, that's in Delaware, which HAS no sales tax.
Nevertheless that is where they do business...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30144522</id>
	<title>First the state. Then...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the county, the city, the municipality.... Once everyone wants their piece all of the logistics arguments come back into play and it will be impossible to keep track of who to pay what to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the county , the city , the municipality.... Once everyone wants their piece all of the logistics arguments come back into play and it will be impossible to keep track of who to pay what to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the county, the city, the municipality.... Once everyone wants their piece all of the logistics arguments come back into play and it will be impossible to keep track of who to pay what to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134018</id>
	<title>Taxes are neither good nor bad...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258449660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but what is bad is an uneven playing field.  Why should Amazon have a financial advantage over the store down the street from me?</p><p>Actually for me they don't, since I do pay my Use Tax obligations.  If anything, buying form amazon is then less convenient because it means one more thing I need to account for while doing my taxes later.  However, I know realistically that most of my fellow citizens don't do this, and just treat their internet purchases as "tax-free".  That just means higher tax rates overall, penalizing us honest folks.</p><p>I do have sympathy for the "it's too burdensome" argument -- not as it applies to Amazon (they're huge, they can handle it) but certainly for the multitude of smaller internet retailers.  What is really needed is a federal clearinghouse for this: have each state (and municipality, etc) register their tax requirements with a central authority, have it publish a computer-readable database mapping address-&gt;tax rate, and have it collect the money, remitting to states.  This is a clear interstate commerce issue, I don't see how even a libertarian could object to a federal role here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but what is bad is an uneven playing field .
Why should Amazon have a financial advantage over the store down the street from me ? Actually for me they do n't , since I do pay my Use Tax obligations .
If anything , buying form amazon is then less convenient because it means one more thing I need to account for while doing my taxes later .
However , I know realistically that most of my fellow citizens do n't do this , and just treat their internet purchases as " tax-free " .
That just means higher tax rates overall , penalizing us honest folks.I do have sympathy for the " it 's too burdensome " argument -- not as it applies to Amazon ( they 're huge , they can handle it ) but certainly for the multitude of smaller internet retailers .
What is really needed is a federal clearinghouse for this : have each state ( and municipality , etc ) register their tax requirements with a central authority , have it publish a computer-readable database mapping address- &gt; tax rate , and have it collect the money , remitting to states .
This is a clear interstate commerce issue , I do n't see how even a libertarian could object to a federal role here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but what is bad is an uneven playing field.
Why should Amazon have a financial advantage over the store down the street from me?Actually for me they don't, since I do pay my Use Tax obligations.
If anything, buying form amazon is then less convenient because it means one more thing I need to account for while doing my taxes later.
However, I know realistically that most of my fellow citizens don't do this, and just treat their internet purchases as "tax-free".
That just means higher tax rates overall, penalizing us honest folks.I do have sympathy for the "it's too burdensome" argument -- not as it applies to Amazon (they're huge, they can handle it) but certainly for the multitude of smaller internet retailers.
What is really needed is a federal clearinghouse for this: have each state (and municipality, etc) register their tax requirements with a central authority, have it publish a computer-readable database mapping address-&gt;tax rate, and have it collect the money, remitting to states.
This is a clear interstate commerce issue, I don't see how even a libertarian could object to a federal role here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136930</id>
	<title>That's the idea</title>
	<author>xclay</author>
	<datestamp>1258460280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the idea--keep the government fat and happy at the expense of American companies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the idea--keep the government fat and happy at the expense of American companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the idea--keep the government fat and happy at the expense of American companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137678</id>
	<title>Eh, that saw gets told the other way too.</title>
	<author>Valdrax</author>
	<datestamp>1258464000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As I have been told many times by my conservative friends, liberals attack the person, conservatives attack the issue.</p> </div><p>Partisans always claim that about the other side.  The fact is that every side makes personal attacks and then pretends that they're "above" the fray.  Just read the hand-held signs at any rally sufficiently large enough or angry enough of people supporting the same issues you do, and you'll find <em>someone</em> out there to embarrass you.  Sometimes I miss living in a conservative state because it's so much easier to be impressed with your own political beliefs when you rarely encounter people who think the same way for all the <em>wrong reasons</em>.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>People are just people, and any sufficiently large group, no matter what their political stripe, is going to be chock full of nuts who think everyone that's not part of their group are all stupid/evil.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I have been told many times by my conservative friends , liberals attack the person , conservatives attack the issue .
Partisans always claim that about the other side .
The fact is that every side makes personal attacks and then pretends that they 're " above " the fray .
Just read the hand-held signs at any rally sufficiently large enough or angry enough of people supporting the same issues you do , and you 'll find someone out there to embarrass you .
Sometimes I miss living in a conservative state because it 's so much easier to be impressed with your own political beliefs when you rarely encounter people who think the same way for all the wrong reasons .
: - ) People are just people , and any sufficiently large group , no matter what their political stripe , is going to be chock full of nuts who think everyone that 's not part of their group are all stupid/evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I have been told many times by my conservative friends, liberals attack the person, conservatives attack the issue.
Partisans always claim that about the other side.
The fact is that every side makes personal attacks and then pretends that they're "above" the fray.
Just read the hand-held signs at any rally sufficiently large enough or angry enough of people supporting the same issues you do, and you'll find someone out there to embarrass you.
Sometimes I miss living in a conservative state because it's so much easier to be impressed with your own political beliefs when you rarely encounter people who think the same way for all the wrong reasons.
:-)People are just people, and any sufficiently large group, no matter what their political stripe, is going to be chock full of nuts who think everyone that's not part of their group are all stupid/evil.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133954</id>
	<title>Re:alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258449480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd like to propose an alternate solution</p><p>I know, most politicians won't go with it, but here it is: How about cutting spending, not only making the additional revenue unnecessary, but enabling the cutting or even elimination of many taxes and "user fees?"</p></div><p>I'd like to propose an <b>alternate alternate</b> solution</p><p>I know, most politicians won't go with it, but here it is: How increasing spending and paying for it with higher taxes and "user fees"?  In particular, let's spend more money on roads and mass transit, education, policing, public safety, regulation of the financial system and providing fair access to decent health insurance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to propose an alternate solutionI know , most politicians wo n't go with it , but here it is : How about cutting spending , not only making the additional revenue unnecessary , but enabling the cutting or even elimination of many taxes and " user fees ?
" I 'd like to propose an alternate alternate solutionI know , most politicians wo n't go with it , but here it is : How increasing spending and paying for it with higher taxes and " user fees " ?
In particular , let 's spend more money on roads and mass transit , education , policing , public safety , regulation of the financial system and providing fair access to decent health insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to propose an alternate solutionI know, most politicians won't go with it, but here it is: How about cutting spending, not only making the additional revenue unnecessary, but enabling the cutting or even elimination of many taxes and "user fees?
"I'd like to propose an alternate alternate solutionI know, most politicians won't go with it, but here it is: How increasing spending and paying for it with higher taxes and "user fees"?
In particular, let's spend more money on roads and mass transit, education, policing, public safety, regulation of the financial system and providing fair access to decent health insurance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134716</id>
	<title>The problem with "legal" taxation</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1258451940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>British taxation of American Colonials was "legal", too... until the Boston Tea Party and what followed it.</p><p>Just because something is currently "legal" doesn't make it ethical.</p><p>In the past, violent uprisings and wars have been fought over less <b>cumulative</b> (i.e., visible + hidden) taxation than Americans and other developed nations endure now.  That should make those who are doing the taxing now rather nervous, I should think.  Will there be another Tea Party, and who's on the guest list?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>British taxation of American Colonials was " legal " , too... until the Boston Tea Party and what followed it.Just because something is currently " legal " does n't make it ethical.In the past , violent uprisings and wars have been fought over less cumulative ( i.e. , visible + hidden ) taxation than Americans and other developed nations endure now .
That should make those who are doing the taxing now rather nervous , I should think .
Will there be another Tea Party , and who 's on the guest list ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>British taxation of American Colonials was "legal", too... until the Boston Tea Party and what followed it.Just because something is currently "legal" doesn't make it ethical.In the past, violent uprisings and wars have been fought over less cumulative (i.e., visible + hidden) taxation than Americans and other developed nations endure now.
That should make those who are doing the taxing now rather nervous, I should think.
Will there be another Tea Party, and who's on the guest list?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134322</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are good...</title>
	<author>iceperson</author>
	<datestamp>1258450680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wasn't aware that UPS didn't pay federal, state, and local taxes. The part of the transaction that occurs in the state and utilizes state infrastructure is taxed.<br> <br>I see you included national defense in there as well. Since there is no national sales tax then Amazon already pays all the taxes that would contribute to national defense through federal corporate and income taxes, just like everyone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was n't aware that UPS did n't pay federal , state , and local taxes .
The part of the transaction that occurs in the state and utilizes state infrastructure is taxed .
I see you included national defense in there as well .
Since there is no national sales tax then Amazon already pays all the taxes that would contribute to national defense through federal corporate and income taxes , just like everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasn't aware that UPS didn't pay federal, state, and local taxes.
The part of the transaction that occurs in the state and utilizes state infrastructure is taxed.
I see you included national defense in there as well.
Since there is no national sales tax then Amazon already pays all the taxes that would contribute to national defense through federal corporate and income taxes, just like everyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133964</id>
	<title>Off-shore</title>
	<author>Aldhibah</author>
	<datestamp>1258449480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>After reading the article the only logical conclusion I can reach is that all e-tailers should move their corporate headquarters and distribution outside of the United States.  They should then move all of their research and development outside of the United States in case some state government construes that as a presence sufficient to justify taxation.  That sounds like a wonderful tax policy there which drives business out of the country.

E-tailers are DIFFERENT than typical brick and mortal retailers. The entities they use to distribute their goods and services pay taxes, except for the US Post Office of course.  Moreover, there has never been perfect rationality between benefits received and taxes paid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading the article the only logical conclusion I can reach is that all e-tailers should move their corporate headquarters and distribution outside of the United States .
They should then move all of their research and development outside of the United States in case some state government construes that as a presence sufficient to justify taxation .
That sounds like a wonderful tax policy there which drives business out of the country .
E-tailers are DIFFERENT than typical brick and mortal retailers .
The entities they use to distribute their goods and services pay taxes , except for the US Post Office of course .
Moreover , there has never been perfect rationality between benefits received and taxes paid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading the article the only logical conclusion I can reach is that all e-tailers should move their corporate headquarters and distribution outside of the United States.
They should then move all of their research and development outside of the United States in case some state government construes that as a presence sufficient to justify taxation.
That sounds like a wonderful tax policy there which drives business out of the country.
E-tailers are DIFFERENT than typical brick and mortal retailers.
The entities they use to distribute their goods and services pay taxes, except for the US Post Office of course.
Moreover, there has never been perfect rationality between benefits received and taxes paid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30146318</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are neither good nor bad...</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1257101940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the clearing house needs to be federal.  The different states and other taxing authorities could just get together and form one as a central service that any retailer could use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the clearing house needs to be federal .
The different states and other taxing authorities could just get together and form one as a central service that any retailer could use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the clearing house needs to be federal.
The different states and other taxing authorities could just get together and form one as a central service that any retailer could use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137264</id>
	<title>Michael Mazerov is a piece of shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258461900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he should probably just kill himself</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he should probably just kill himself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he should probably just kill himself</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134964</id>
	<title>Calling BS on Calling BS on Amazon's taxation...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258452780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is Amazon supposed to do about county and local taxes?  And there is the issue of taxable status based on the item itself.   Sometimes food is taxable.   Sometimes not.  It depends.  Same with clothing.  Yes, even books.  The various authorities have no one to blame but themselves for all of this inconsistency.  When a company has physical presence in a particular locale, there is usually someone who knows what the local regulations are.  Even if someone sets up a database of zip codes, the postal boundaries do not necessarily coincide with a jurisdiction.  And of course, the taxable status of the item remains as a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is Amazon supposed to do about county and local taxes ?
And there is the issue of taxable status based on the item itself .
Sometimes food is taxable .
Sometimes not .
It depends .
Same with clothing .
Yes , even books .
The various authorities have no one to blame but themselves for all of this inconsistency .
When a company has physical presence in a particular locale , there is usually someone who knows what the local regulations are .
Even if someone sets up a database of zip codes , the postal boundaries do not necessarily coincide with a jurisdiction .
And of course , the taxable status of the item remains as a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is Amazon supposed to do about county and local taxes?
And there is the issue of taxable status based on the item itself.
Sometimes food is taxable.
Sometimes not.
It depends.
Same with clothing.
Yes, even books.
The various authorities have no one to blame but themselves for all of this inconsistency.
When a company has physical presence in a particular locale, there is usually someone who knows what the local regulations are.
Even if someone sets up a database of zip codes, the postal boundaries do not necessarily coincide with a jurisdiction.
And of course, the taxable status of the item remains as a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134150</id>
	<title>Against their interest to resist</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1258450140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eventually it will be taxed. That's inevitable. But what they should work on instead is <b>keeping internet taxes simple</b>. If they work with lawmakers up-front on a decent tax system for the 'net, then they can influence the structure so that it's not convoluted. But if instead it's incrementally introduced by gradual political pressure, it will then be a mish-mash of rules from different lawmakers and regions, harming internet sells in general via complexity and confusion. Amazon would then have to face <b>both</b> sales taxes and a <b>complexity "tax"</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually it will be taxed .
That 's inevitable .
But what they should work on instead is keeping internet taxes simple .
If they work with lawmakers up-front on a decent tax system for the 'net , then they can influence the structure so that it 's not convoluted .
But if instead it 's incrementally introduced by gradual political pressure , it will then be a mish-mash of rules from different lawmakers and regions , harming internet sells in general via complexity and confusion .
Amazon would then have to face both sales taxes and a complexity " tax " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually it will be taxed.
That's inevitable.
But what they should work on instead is keeping internet taxes simple.
If they work with lawmakers up-front on a decent tax system for the 'net, then they can influence the structure so that it's not convoluted.
But if instead it's incrementally introduced by gradual political pressure, it will then be a mish-mash of rules from different lawmakers and regions, harming internet sells in general via complexity and confusion.
Amazon would then have to face both sales taxes and a complexity "tax".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134034</id>
	<title>Government on the attack</title>
	<author>MSTCrow5429</author>
	<datestamp>1258449720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>By claiming sales-tax immunity, says Mazerov, Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5\%-10\% price advantage over local retailers.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Then stop attacking the local retailers with taxes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By claiming sales-tax immunity , says Mazerov , Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5 \ % -10 \ % price advantage over local retailers .
Then stop attacking the local retailers with taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By claiming sales-tax immunity, says Mazerov, Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5\%-10\% price advantage over local retailers.
Then stop attacking the local retailers with taxes.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135208</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>A nonymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1258453560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's why states hate this idea.  Because it would allow the states to compete with each other to bring more shipping business into its state.</p></div><p>I think there's another reason, but I am only guessing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... lawyers.  Sales taxes really came into affect in the 1930s Great Depression, and I suspect that if states tried to push their mail order companies to collect out of state taxes, other states probably would have screamed bloody murder that their citizens were being charged for taxation without representation.  And the mail order companies would have threatened to relocate to a friendlier state.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's why states hate this idea .
Because it would allow the states to compete with each other to bring more shipping business into its state.I think there 's another reason , but I am only guessing ... lawyers. Sales taxes really came into affect in the 1930s Great Depression , and I suspect that if states tried to push their mail order companies to collect out of state taxes , other states probably would have screamed bloody murder that their citizens were being charged for taxation without representation .
And the mail order companies would have threatened to relocate to a friendlier state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's why states hate this idea.
Because it would allow the states to compete with each other to bring more shipping business into its state.I think there's another reason, but I am only guessing ... lawyers.  Sales taxes really came into affect in the 1930s Great Depression, and I suspect that if states tried to push their mail order companies to collect out of state taxes, other states probably would have screamed bloody murder that their citizens were being charged for taxation without representation.
And the mail order companies would have threatened to relocate to a friendlier state.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139784</id>
	<title>Backwards...</title>
	<author>dark\_requiem</author>
	<datestamp>1258480020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5\%-10\% price advantage over local retailers</p></div></blockquote><p>

Wrong.  Local Retailers have suffered an unfair 5-10\% theft of their profits compared to amazon.  If someone robs you, do you complain that your friends and neighbors weren't robbed to the same extent?  You can wax poetic all you want about everyone paying "their fair share", but when party A takes money earned by party B, and uses it for purposes not approved of or supported by party B, it's called theft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5 \ % -10 \ % price advantage over local retailers Wrong .
Local Retailers have suffered an unfair 5-10 \ % theft of their profits compared to amazon .
If someone robs you , do you complain that your friends and neighbors were n't robbed to the same extent ?
You can wax poetic all you want about everyone paying " their fair share " , but when party A takes money earned by party B , and uses it for purposes not approved of or supported by party B , it 's called theft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon has enjoyed an unfair 5\%-10\% price advantage over local retailers

Wrong.
Local Retailers have suffered an unfair 5-10\% theft of their profits compared to amazon.
If someone robs you, do you complain that your friends and neighbors weren't robbed to the same extent?
You can wax poetic all you want about everyone paying "their fair share", but when party A takes money earned by party B, and uses it for purposes not approved of or supported by party B, it's called theft.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134668</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1258451820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, Amazon is big, and an easy target people recognize.  They can be hit for the kind of massive damages that make headlines, and make all the other non-compliant sites quivver in their boots and implement systems for colelcting sales taxes for fear of punishment.  Also, since Amazon is NOT a local store in your community, ervy local store owner, and all their friends, and all the pople who work at BestBuy and other complaint retail stores will all support it, and thus there's no political backlash from doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , Amazon is big , and an easy target people recognize .
They can be hit for the kind of massive damages that make headlines , and make all the other non-compliant sites quivver in their boots and implement systems for colelcting sales taxes for fear of punishment .
Also , since Amazon is NOT a local store in your community , ervy local store owner , and all their friends , and all the pople who work at BestBuy and other complaint retail stores will all support it , and thus there 's no political backlash from doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, Amazon is big, and an easy target people recognize.
They can be hit for the kind of massive damages that make headlines, and make all the other non-compliant sites quivver in their boots and implement systems for colelcting sales taxes for fear of punishment.
Also, since Amazon is NOT a local store in your community, ervy local store owner, and all their friends, and all the pople who work at BestBuy and other complaint retail stores will all support it, and thus there's no political backlash from doing so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136486</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258458360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so, your solution to retailers not charging sales taxes is to setup a situation where states would have to lower sales taxes in order to compete with each other, to the point that sales taxes would have to be eliminated?  Thus, we would end up with no sales tax for retailers to charge.  So when retailers are not charging sales tax, we would have no reason to complain about retailers not charging sales tax.</p><p>A simpler solution, if only there was...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so , your solution to retailers not charging sales taxes is to setup a situation where states would have to lower sales taxes in order to compete with each other , to the point that sales taxes would have to be eliminated ?
Thus , we would end up with no sales tax for retailers to charge .
So when retailers are not charging sales tax , we would have no reason to complain about retailers not charging sales tax.A simpler solution , if only there was.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so, your solution to retailers not charging sales taxes is to setup a situation where states would have to lower sales taxes in order to compete with each other, to the point that sales taxes would have to be eliminated?
Thus, we would end up with no sales tax for retailers to charge.
So when retailers are not charging sales tax, we would have no reason to complain about retailers not charging sales tax.A simpler solution, if only there was...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30143502</id>
	<title>Real reasons we cant tax this</title>
	<author>markov23</author>
	<datestamp>1257090840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Besides the constitutional reasons that it is like this that will not change --- lets look at what would happen if you allowed local govts to enforce everyone to collect thier taxes.  I know my fair city - Philadelphia -- would within a week decide that all items ordered on line were subject to a 15\% tax that they wanted collected.  They would cry poor and make all the same arguments here - but mostly they like taxing people that cant vote them out of office and would present this as a way to help local busineses.  Soon every township that has a guy on the board that feels mail order places are biting into his business would tax this whole concept out of existance -- which is why we have a clause in the consititution that prevents interferance with inter state commerce -- because without it -- we would.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides the constitutional reasons that it is like this that will not change --- lets look at what would happen if you allowed local govts to enforce everyone to collect thier taxes .
I know my fair city - Philadelphia -- would within a week decide that all items ordered on line were subject to a 15 \ % tax that they wanted collected .
They would cry poor and make all the same arguments here - but mostly they like taxing people that cant vote them out of office and would present this as a way to help local busineses .
Soon every township that has a guy on the board that feels mail order places are biting into his business would tax this whole concept out of existance -- which is why we have a clause in the consititution that prevents interferance with inter state commerce -- because without it -- we would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides the constitutional reasons that it is like this that will not change --- lets look at what would happen if you allowed local govts to enforce everyone to collect thier taxes.
I know my fair city - Philadelphia -- would within a week decide that all items ordered on line were subject to a 15\% tax that they wanted collected.
They would cry poor and make all the same arguments here - but mostly they like taxing people that cant vote them out of office and would present this as a way to help local busineses.
Soon every township that has a guy on the board that feels mail order places are biting into his business would tax this whole concept out of existance -- which is why we have a clause in the consititution that prevents interferance with inter state commerce -- because without it -- we would.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134340</id>
	<title>Re:alternative</title>
	<author>Delwin</author>
	<datestamp>1258450740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, and what exactly are you going to cut?<br> <br>One man's waste is another's paycheck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , and what exactly are you going to cut ?
One man 's waste is another 's paycheck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, and what exactly are you going to cut?
One man's waste is another's paycheck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135442</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258454340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck you, I GOT MINE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck you , I GOT MINE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck you, I GOT MINE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136992</id>
	<title>Re:alternative</title>
	<author>RajivSLK</author>
	<datestamp>1258460580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only problem.. well maybe not the *only* problem but a big problem is that businesses would simply leave... they would go to other places with skilled workers and cheaper taxes... then you would be screwed and the other place would be booming...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only problem.. well maybe not the * only * problem but a big problem is that businesses would simply leave... they would go to other places with skilled workers and cheaper taxes... then you would be screwed and the other place would be booming.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only problem.. well maybe not the *only* problem but a big problem is that businesses would simply leave... they would go to other places with skilled workers and cheaper taxes... then you would be screwed and the other place would be booming...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139992</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>jmac\_the\_man</author>
	<datestamp>1258481820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I go to California to buy something, I have to pay California's taxes and not my own.  If I pay someone to go to California to buy something for me, I'd have to pay California's taxes and no my own.  But for some bizarre reason, when I pay FedEx to ship it to me, suddenly I do not have to pay California's tax but I have to pay my state's use tax.</p></div><p>The use tax applies to brick and mortar purchases just as much as it does to Internet purchases (i.e. as much as you're willing to admit to your state's version of the IRS.) If your out of state purchase is something that the state keeps track of through other means (you register your car, right?), they'll charge you the use tax even if you didn't buy your car online.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I go to California to buy something , I have to pay California 's taxes and not my own .
If I pay someone to go to California to buy something for me , I 'd have to pay California 's taxes and no my own .
But for some bizarre reason , when I pay FedEx to ship it to me , suddenly I do not have to pay California 's tax but I have to pay my state 's use tax.The use tax applies to brick and mortar purchases just as much as it does to Internet purchases ( i.e .
as much as you 're willing to admit to your state 's version of the IRS .
) If your out of state purchase is something that the state keeps track of through other means ( you register your car , right ?
) , they 'll charge you the use tax even if you did n't buy your car online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I go to California to buy something, I have to pay California's taxes and not my own.
If I pay someone to go to California to buy something for me, I'd have to pay California's taxes and no my own.
But for some bizarre reason, when I pay FedEx to ship it to me, suddenly I do not have to pay California's tax but I have to pay my state's use tax.The use tax applies to brick and mortar purchases just as much as it does to Internet purchases (i.e.
as much as you're willing to admit to your state's version of the IRS.
) If your out of state purchase is something that the state keeps track of through other means (you register your car, right?
), they'll charge you the use tax even if you didn't buy your car online.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135114</id>
	<title>Re:Mazerov can bite me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258453260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And here's hoping a meteor hits Sacramento.</p></div><p>But Sacramento will complain about who to tax for the delivery of the meteor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And here 's hoping a meteor hits Sacramento.But Sacramento will complain about who to tax for the delivery of the meteor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here's hoping a meteor hits Sacramento.But Sacramento will complain about who to tax for the delivery of the meteor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133594</id>
	<title>Use Tax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258491480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's already the law in some states to report purchases that you have not paid sales tax on, called a Use Tax. If you purchase something and Amazon does not collect sales tax, you are supposed to report this directly and pay it directly to the government.
<br> <br>
I think the real problem is that since nobody does this, they expect Amazon to do the legwork.<br> <br>Realistically, it is a businesses' job to collect tax for the state it currently resides in. It would be an undue burden for just about any business to get the workings of every other state's tax just to do business, say, like a phone order! <br> <br>Sure, amazon is big enough, but that still crushes the little guys with a hefty start-up capital requirement, and a full time tax guy to figure this out.<br> <br>What they need is a disclaimer telling customers that they may need to report the use-tax, and give a hyperlink to more info on that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's already the law in some states to report purchases that you have not paid sales tax on , called a Use Tax .
If you purchase something and Amazon does not collect sales tax , you are supposed to report this directly and pay it directly to the government .
I think the real problem is that since nobody does this , they expect Amazon to do the legwork .
Realistically , it is a businesses ' job to collect tax for the state it currently resides in .
It would be an undue burden for just about any business to get the workings of every other state 's tax just to do business , say , like a phone order !
Sure , amazon is big enough , but that still crushes the little guys with a hefty start-up capital requirement , and a full time tax guy to figure this out .
What they need is a disclaimer telling customers that they may need to report the use-tax , and give a hyperlink to more info on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's already the law in some states to report purchases that you have not paid sales tax on, called a Use Tax.
If you purchase something and Amazon does not collect sales tax, you are supposed to report this directly and pay it directly to the government.
I think the real problem is that since nobody does this, they expect Amazon to do the legwork.
Realistically, it is a businesses' job to collect tax for the state it currently resides in.
It would be an undue burden for just about any business to get the workings of every other state's tax just to do business, say, like a phone order!
Sure, amazon is big enough, but that still crushes the little guys with a hefty start-up capital requirement, and a full time tax guy to figure this out.
What they need is a disclaimer telling customers that they may need to report the use-tax, and give a hyperlink to more info on that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137360</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are good... They aren't?</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1258462320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that taxes are a necessary evil does not make them cease to be evil.  I pay for my sewage like any other bill - water to my house is charged for purification and sewage, while water (on a separate meter) to the sprinkler system is charged for purification only.  Per gallon.  Trash collection is on the same bill.  I pay for bridges and roads with gasoline taxes and vehicle registration fees.  I pay property taxes for (in theory) police protection and (unusable) public schools.<br> <br>You've never lived somewhere that government was incompetent, have you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that taxes are a necessary evil does not make them cease to be evil .
I pay for my sewage like any other bill - water to my house is charged for purification and sewage , while water ( on a separate meter ) to the sprinkler system is charged for purification only .
Per gallon .
Trash collection is on the same bill .
I pay for bridges and roads with gasoline taxes and vehicle registration fees .
I pay property taxes for ( in theory ) police protection and ( unusable ) public schools .
You 've never lived somewhere that government was incompetent , have you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that taxes are a necessary evil does not make them cease to be evil.
I pay for my sewage like any other bill - water to my house is charged for purification and sewage, while water (on a separate meter) to the sprinkler system is charged for purification only.
Per gallon.
Trash collection is on the same bill.
I pay for bridges and roads with gasoline taxes and vehicle registration fees.
I pay property taxes for (in theory) police protection and (unusable) public schools.
You've never lived somewhere that government was incompetent, have you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30153236</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257099600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The USA doesn't actually believe in "no taxation without representation"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as an international student doing a PhD, I pay US taxes on my stipend without being able to vote here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The USA does n't actually believe in " no taxation without representation " ... as an international student doing a PhD , I pay US taxes on my stipend without being able to vote here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USA doesn't actually believe in "no taxation without representation" ... as an international student doing a PhD, I pay US taxes on my stipend without being able to vote here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135590</id>
	<title>Re:Simplify</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1258454760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Charge a single tax rate for all on-line purchases and pay each state based on the amount sold to that state.</i></p><p>Except some states *gasp* like Delaware don't have sales tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charge a single tax rate for all on-line purchases and pay each state based on the amount sold to that state.Except some states * gasp * like Delaware do n't have sales tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charge a single tax rate for all on-line purchases and pay each state based on the amount sold to that state.Except some states *gasp* like Delaware don't have sales tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134308</id>
	<title>Re:Government on the attack</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1258450620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would make too much sense.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would make too much sense.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would make too much sense.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135558</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258454700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually that's not technically true, at least not for Californians.  The California Board of Equalization says that "Use Tax" (ie sales tax on things you didn't pay sales tax on) is due on most products purchased from an out-of-state vendor which did not collect *California* sales tax.  So even if you paid sales tax in the state you bought it in, California still wants their cut.</p><p>http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/usetaxreturn.htm</p><p>"You generally owe California use tax when you use, consume, give away or store tangible personal property (i.e., products you can see, weigh, feel or touch, such as clothing, books, computers, DVDs or CDs) in California that you purchased from an out-of-state vendor. If the out-of-state vendor does not collect the California tax on your purchase, you must pay the tax"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually that 's not technically true , at least not for Californians .
The California Board of Equalization says that " Use Tax " ( ie sales tax on things you did n't pay sales tax on ) is due on most products purchased from an out-of-state vendor which did not collect * California * sales tax .
So even if you paid sales tax in the state you bought it in , California still wants their cut.http : //www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/usetaxreturn.htm " You generally owe California use tax when you use , consume , give away or store tangible personal property ( i.e. , products you can see , weigh , feel or touch , such as clothing , books , computers , DVDs or CDs ) in California that you purchased from an out-of-state vendor .
If the out-of-state vendor does not collect the California tax on your purchase , you must pay the tax "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually that's not technically true, at least not for Californians.
The California Board of Equalization says that "Use Tax" (ie sales tax on things you didn't pay sales tax on) is due on most products purchased from an out-of-state vendor which did not collect *California* sales tax.
So even if you paid sales tax in the state you bought it in, California still wants their cut.http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/usetaxreturn.htm"You generally owe California use tax when you use, consume, give away or store tangible personal property (i.e., products you can see, weigh, feel or touch, such as clothing, books, computers, DVDs or CDs) in California that you purchased from an out-of-state vendor.
If the out-of-state vendor does not collect the California tax on your purchase, you must pay the tax"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136604</id>
	<title>Re:alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258458840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd like to propose an <b>alternate alternate</b> solution</p><p>I know, most politicians won't go with it, but here it is: How increasing spending and paying for it with higher taxes and "user fees"?  In particular, let's spend more money on roads and mass transit, education, policing, public safety, regulation of the financial system and providing fair access to decent health insurance.</p></div><p>Because, unlike the original "alternate solution" you quoted, your solution doesn't work.  It's been proven over and over in the real world that the higher taxes and fees you propose would result in a lower net income to the government.  The economy isn't subject to static analysis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to propose an alternate alternate solutionI know , most politicians wo n't go with it , but here it is : How increasing spending and paying for it with higher taxes and " user fees " ?
In particular , let 's spend more money on roads and mass transit , education , policing , public safety , regulation of the financial system and providing fair access to decent health insurance.Because , unlike the original " alternate solution " you quoted , your solution does n't work .
It 's been proven over and over in the real world that the higher taxes and fees you propose would result in a lower net income to the government .
The economy is n't subject to static analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to propose an alternate alternate solutionI know, most politicians won't go with it, but here it is: How increasing spending and paying for it with higher taxes and "user fees"?
In particular, let's spend more money on roads and mass transit, education, policing, public safety, regulation of the financial system and providing fair access to decent health insurance.Because, unlike the original "alternate solution" you quoted, your solution doesn't work.
It's been proven over and over in the real world that the higher taxes and fees you propose would result in a lower net income to the government.
The economy isn't subject to static analysis.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134830</id>
	<title>Re:There are numerous problems.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258452300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's simple enough for brick-and-morter to keep track of the taxes where they are, but to keep track of every state, county, and municipality in the US would indeed be burdensome.</p><p>We need to go back and redesign, among other things, the entire concept of sales tax to work in the modern economy.</p></div><p>So Amazon can readily keep track of hundreds of thousands of items and associated prices - but a proportionally smaller number of tax variations would be burdensome?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's simple enough for brick-and-morter to keep track of the taxes where they are , but to keep track of every state , county , and municipality in the US would indeed be burdensome.We need to go back and redesign , among other things , the entire concept of sales tax to work in the modern economy.So Amazon can readily keep track of hundreds of thousands of items and associated prices - but a proportionally smaller number of tax variations would be burdensome ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's simple enough for brick-and-morter to keep track of the taxes where they are, but to keep track of every state, county, and municipality in the US would indeed be burdensome.We need to go back and redesign, among other things, the entire concept of sales tax to work in the modern economy.So Amazon can readily keep track of hundreds of thousands of items and associated prices - but a proportionally smaller number of tax variations would be burdensome?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133946</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, taxes, taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258449480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, how else are we supposed we fund poorly managed gov'ts??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , how else are we supposed we fund poorly managed gov'ts ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, how else are we supposed we fund poorly managed gov'ts?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135718</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258455180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other reason states hate this is because there's NO SUCH FUCKING THING. Mail-order has been exempt from sales tax (with certain restrictions) since your great-great-grandparents were keeping old Sears catalogs to use as toilet paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other reason states hate this is because there 's NO SUCH FUCKING THING .
Mail-order has been exempt from sales tax ( with certain restrictions ) since your great-great-grandparents were keeping old Sears catalogs to use as toilet paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other reason states hate this is because there's NO SUCH FUCKING THING.
Mail-order has been exempt from sales tax (with certain restrictions) since your great-great-grandparents were keeping old Sears catalogs to use as toilet paper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136682</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258459200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who the hell cares what Amazon claims?  If you think it should be taxed, write your representatives and demand they <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet\_Tax\_Freedom\_Act" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">do something about the bill that's been renewed through 2014</a> [wikipedia.org].</p>  </div><p>Did you even read the page you linked to?</p><p>"Contrary to popular belief, it does not exempt sales made on the internet as they will be taxed at the same rate as non-Internet sales just like mail order sales. The Act did not repeal any state sales or use tax."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell cares what Amazon claims ?
If you think it should be taxed , write your representatives and demand they do something about the bill that 's been renewed through 2014 [ wikipedia.org ] .
Did you even read the page you linked to ?
" Contrary to popular belief , it does not exempt sales made on the internet as they will be taxed at the same rate as non-Internet sales just like mail order sales .
The Act did not repeal any state sales or use tax .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell cares what Amazon claims?
If you think it should be taxed, write your representatives and demand they do something about the bill that's been renewed through 2014 [wikipedia.org].
Did you even read the page you linked to?
"Contrary to popular belief, it does not exempt sales made on the internet as they will be taxed at the same rate as non-Internet sales just like mail order sales.
The Act did not repeal any state sales or use tax.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134854</id>
	<title>Re:States should fix this in their own laws</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1258452360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sales tax is unfair because it's a regressive tax. It's base on how much you buy, not how much you make, and the poor are taxed more percentage wise than a rich person.</p></div></blockquote><p>So, it is better to punish people for being successful rather than punish people for spending foolishly?<br>How about the fact that people who make more, spend more?<br>How about the fact that people who make more pay more in other taxes to the point they pay more taxes over all?<br>How about the fact that people who are poor spend a greater portion of their income on items that are not taxed?<br>How about the fact that people who are poor benefit vastly more from the services provided by taxes?</p><p>You say income tax is the fair way to go, but income tax rates often increase as one's income increases. Would you support a flat rate tax, say a straight 25\% off the top, where everyone who earns any income must pay a certain percentage as tax, without any deductions or credits?</p><p>You think it is wrong to be charged the same amount for an item regards of one's income? Tell me, do you work for free or for a reduced rate if your employer's profit goes down? Please explain why a shirt should cost less for someone who makes less money when that is not tied to the cost of production and sale of the shirt? Why should the tax rate be different as only a flat rate tax is fair?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sales tax is unfair because it 's a regressive tax .
It 's base on how much you buy , not how much you make , and the poor are taxed more percentage wise than a rich person.So , it is better to punish people for being successful rather than punish people for spending foolishly ? How about the fact that people who make more , spend more ? How about the fact that people who make more pay more in other taxes to the point they pay more taxes over all ? How about the fact that people who are poor spend a greater portion of their income on items that are not taxed ? How about the fact that people who are poor benefit vastly more from the services provided by taxes ? You say income tax is the fair way to go , but income tax rates often increase as one 's income increases .
Would you support a flat rate tax , say a straight 25 \ % off the top , where everyone who earns any income must pay a certain percentage as tax , without any deductions or credits ? You think it is wrong to be charged the same amount for an item regards of one 's income ?
Tell me , do you work for free or for a reduced rate if your employer 's profit goes down ?
Please explain why a shirt should cost less for someone who makes less money when that is not tied to the cost of production and sale of the shirt ?
Why should the tax rate be different as only a flat rate tax is fair ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sales tax is unfair because it's a regressive tax.
It's base on how much you buy, not how much you make, and the poor are taxed more percentage wise than a rich person.So, it is better to punish people for being successful rather than punish people for spending foolishly?How about the fact that people who make more, spend more?How about the fact that people who make more pay more in other taxes to the point they pay more taxes over all?How about the fact that people who are poor spend a greater portion of their income on items that are not taxed?How about the fact that people who are poor benefit vastly more from the services provided by taxes?You say income tax is the fair way to go, but income tax rates often increase as one's income increases.
Would you support a flat rate tax, say a straight 25\% off the top, where everyone who earns any income must pay a certain percentage as tax, without any deductions or credits?You think it is wrong to be charged the same amount for an item regards of one's income?
Tell me, do you work for free or for a reduced rate if your employer's profit goes down?
Please explain why a shirt should cost less for someone who makes less money when that is not tied to the cost of production and sale of the shirt?
Why should the tax rate be different as only a flat rate tax is fair?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136500</id>
	<title>Oh goody goody, more taxes</title>
	<author>transami</author>
	<datestamp>1258458420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do they even have  a reason to collect the taxes? Or is that just what the politico-bot does?</p><p>Fact is, Online buyers have to pay shipping too. A tax equal to brick-and-morter's would be burdensome, especially for small online retailers.</p><p>Moreover, if there is going be some sort of tax, then why not apply it where the administration and infrastructure is already setup to collect it --the shipping companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they even have a reason to collect the taxes ?
Or is that just what the politico-bot does ? Fact is , Online buyers have to pay shipping too .
A tax equal to brick-and-morter 's would be burdensome , especially for small online retailers.Moreover , if there is going be some sort of tax , then why not apply it where the administration and infrastructure is already setup to collect it --the shipping companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they even have  a reason to collect the taxes?
Or is that just what the politico-bot does?Fact is, Online buyers have to pay shipping too.
A tax equal to brick-and-morter's would be burdensome, especially for small online retailers.Moreover, if there is going be some sort of tax, then why not apply it where the administration and infrastructure is already setup to collect it --the shipping companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30140282</id>
	<title>Sales tax is not regressive</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1258484400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Sales tax is unfair because it's a regressive tax."</p><p>No it isn't.  I paid more tax (by \%) in Ohio that had an income and sales tax than I did in Washington which has a sales tax.</p><p>Why?</p><p>Food, medicines and many services were exempt from sales tax.  But ALL of my income was subject to city taxes of 2\% (some payed more due to schools).  And almost all of my income was subject to State income tax.</p><p>Poor people don't buy lots of stuff.  And the stuff they buy tends to be cheap. If you exempt food, medications and services the sales tax can be less regressive than an income tax.  I'll certainly take a sales tax over a combined sales/income tax any day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sales tax is unfair because it 's a regressive tax .
" No it is n't .
I paid more tax ( by \ % ) in Ohio that had an income and sales tax than I did in Washington which has a sales tax.Why ? Food , medicines and many services were exempt from sales tax .
But ALL of my income was subject to city taxes of 2 \ % ( some payed more due to schools ) .
And almost all of my income was subject to State income tax.Poor people do n't buy lots of stuff .
And the stuff they buy tends to be cheap .
If you exempt food , medications and services the sales tax can be less regressive than an income tax .
I 'll certainly take a sales tax over a combined sales/income tax any day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sales tax is unfair because it's a regressive tax.
"No it isn't.
I paid more tax (by \%) in Ohio that had an income and sales tax than I did in Washington which has a sales tax.Why?Food, medicines and many services were exempt from sales tax.
But ALL of my income was subject to city taxes of 2\% (some payed more due to schools).
And almost all of my income was subject to State income tax.Poor people don't buy lots of stuff.
And the stuff they buy tends to be cheap.
If you exempt food, medications and services the sales tax can be less regressive than an income tax.
I'll certainly take a sales tax over a combined sales/income tax any day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135728</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258455240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And why are we singling out Amazon?  Why not Dell or Newegg or even ThinkGeek?  Is it because Amazon is doing too well?</p>  </div><p>Newegg collects sales tax actually, I know because I live in one of the state Newegg has a physical presence. But Newegg can also figure out the Tax Free holiday, and I had no trouble at all getting refund from them when I bought a computer during the tax free weekend. If Newegg can do it, Amazon should be able too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why are we singling out Amazon ?
Why not Dell or Newegg or even ThinkGeek ?
Is it because Amazon is doing too well ?
Newegg collects sales tax actually , I know because I live in one of the state Newegg has a physical presence .
But Newegg can also figure out the Tax Free holiday , and I had no trouble at all getting refund from them when I bought a computer during the tax free weekend .
If Newegg can do it , Amazon should be able too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why are we singling out Amazon?
Why not Dell or Newegg or even ThinkGeek?
Is it because Amazon is doing too well?
Newegg collects sales tax actually, I know because I live in one of the state Newegg has a physical presence.
But Newegg can also figure out the Tax Free holiday, and I had no trouble at all getting refund from them when I bought a computer during the tax free weekend.
If Newegg can do it, Amazon should be able too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134498</id>
	<title>Re:Government on the attack</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1258451220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're volunteering to pay higher property and income taxes to make up the difference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're volunteering to pay higher property and income taxes to make up the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're volunteering to pay higher property and income taxes to make up the difference?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135656</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258455000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because companies with physical presence DO pay sales tax for online transactions.  If I buy from Apple (including iTunes) Walmart, Best Buy, Barnes &amp; Nobel, they all include sales tax because they have stores in my state. Amazon doesn't have ANY retail locations and they argue that "warehouses" are not sales points either, so effectively they run a "sales tax free" business... Considering that in my state a business like Walmart has to pre-pay projected tax for the NEXT month/quarter ahead of time that's a serious financial cash flow advantage.</p><p>Of course the duck in the room is that Visa and Mastercard should be collecting sales tax as they do business at YOUR Postal address and have to follow individual state's banking laws which typically include not evading taxes. The interstate commerce provisions of the constitution specifically protect shippers like UPS or Fed Ex under "free movement" rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because companies with physical presence DO pay sales tax for online transactions .
If I buy from Apple ( including iTunes ) Walmart , Best Buy , Barnes &amp; Nobel , they all include sales tax because they have stores in my state .
Amazon does n't have ANY retail locations and they argue that " warehouses " are not sales points either , so effectively they run a " sales tax free " business... Considering that in my state a business like Walmart has to pre-pay projected tax for the NEXT month/quarter ahead of time that 's a serious financial cash flow advantage.Of course the duck in the room is that Visa and Mastercard should be collecting sales tax as they do business at YOUR Postal address and have to follow individual state 's banking laws which typically include not evading taxes .
The interstate commerce provisions of the constitution specifically protect shippers like UPS or Fed Ex under " free movement " rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because companies with physical presence DO pay sales tax for online transactions.
If I buy from Apple (including iTunes) Walmart, Best Buy, Barnes &amp; Nobel, they all include sales tax because they have stores in my state.
Amazon doesn't have ANY retail locations and they argue that "warehouses" are not sales points either, so effectively they run a "sales tax free" business... Considering that in my state a business like Walmart has to pre-pay projected tax for the NEXT month/quarter ahead of time that's a serious financial cash flow advantage.Of course the duck in the room is that Visa and Mastercard should be collecting sales tax as they do business at YOUR Postal address and have to follow individual state's banking laws which typically include not evading taxes.
The interstate commerce provisions of the constitution specifically protect shippers like UPS or Fed Ex under "free movement" rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135976</id>
	<title>Re:The simple solution....</title>
	<author>physicsphairy</author>
	<datestamp>1258456320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question is... who eats the tax?

</p><p>It's not really you that's paying it if the company in question has to lower their base price as a result of the tax in order to compete.  (Then you're still paying the same price as you would otherwise but the company has smaller profits.)

</p><p>And if the point is merely for *you* to pay for the services *you use* then I really have to wonder if a sales tax is the most appropriate format.  Ostensibly you will be using services like libraries, roads, etc. regardless of your purchasing habits.  In some cases there might be a correlation (gas::roads) but maybe the parent post has the right idea, and it just needs to be taken the further step of there not being a sales tax in the first place: everything is collected through income taxes.

</p><p>Taxing something you want to reduce consumption of (such as tobacco) is one thing, but by extension are we to assume the legislators want to reduce consumption of <em>everything</em> in varying degrees?  I think for the most part sales taxes are just a clever shell game.  Take a little here, a little there, try to sneak things in and keep people from looking at the total.  If tax collection followed one simple rule instead relying on literally hundreds of thousands of pages of individual rubrics we wouldn't even have to deal with these sorts of nebulous tax questions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is... who eats the tax ?
It 's not really you that 's paying it if the company in question has to lower their base price as a result of the tax in order to compete .
( Then you 're still paying the same price as you would otherwise but the company has smaller profits .
) And if the point is merely for * you * to pay for the services * you use * then I really have to wonder if a sales tax is the most appropriate format .
Ostensibly you will be using services like libraries , roads , etc .
regardless of your purchasing habits .
In some cases there might be a correlation ( gas : : roads ) but maybe the parent post has the right idea , and it just needs to be taken the further step of there not being a sales tax in the first place : everything is collected through income taxes .
Taxing something you want to reduce consumption of ( such as tobacco ) is one thing , but by extension are we to assume the legislators want to reduce consumption of everything in varying degrees ?
I think for the most part sales taxes are just a clever shell game .
Take a little here , a little there , try to sneak things in and keep people from looking at the total .
If tax collection followed one simple rule instead relying on literally hundreds of thousands of pages of individual rubrics we would n't even have to deal with these sorts of nebulous tax questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is... who eats the tax?
It's not really you that's paying it if the company in question has to lower their base price as a result of the tax in order to compete.
(Then you're still paying the same price as you would otherwise but the company has smaller profits.
)

And if the point is merely for *you* to pay for the services *you use* then I really have to wonder if a sales tax is the most appropriate format.
Ostensibly you will be using services like libraries, roads, etc.
regardless of your purchasing habits.
In some cases there might be a correlation (gas::roads) but maybe the parent post has the right idea, and it just needs to be taken the further step of there not being a sales tax in the first place: everything is collected through income taxes.
Taxing something you want to reduce consumption of (such as tobacco) is one thing, but by extension are we to assume the legislators want to reduce consumption of everything in varying degrees?
I think for the most part sales taxes are just a clever shell game.
Take a little here, a little there, try to sneak things in and keep people from looking at the total.
If tax collection followed one simple rule instead relying on literally hundreds of thousands of pages of individual rubrics we wouldn't even have to deal with these sorts of nebulous tax questions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134014</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Tax Freedom Act &amp; Why Only Amazon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258449660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Internet Tax Freeman Act has nothing to do with Sales Tax. It states that there will be no additional taxes levied on the Internet. Sales tax still applies. If the ITFA was repealed, states could charge Amazon a tax, but it wouldn't be a sales tax and it would also apply to every other merchant out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet Tax Freeman Act has nothing to do with Sales Tax .
It states that there will be no additional taxes levied on the Internet .
Sales tax still applies .
If the ITFA was repealed , states could charge Amazon a tax , but it would n't be a sales tax and it would also apply to every other merchant out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet Tax Freeman Act has nothing to do with Sales Tax.
It states that there will be no additional taxes levied on the Internet.
Sales tax still applies.
If the ITFA was repealed, states could charge Amazon a tax, but it wouldn't be a sales tax and it would also apply to every other merchant out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30140830</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with "legal" taxation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kill yourself now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kill yourself now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kill yourself now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802</id>
	<title>Taxes, taxes, taxes</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1258449000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To look at this another way, perhaps Amazon's 5-10\% price advantage will pressure the states to drop their sales tax for the sake of local businesses. This is completely feasible - Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon already have no sales tax.</p><p>The money that consumers use to purchase goods was already taxed, twice. First the government taxes their income, then the state takes a slice too. Do we really need to tax people's money as it goes into the wallet AND as it goes out?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To look at this another way , perhaps Amazon 's 5-10 \ % price advantage will pressure the states to drop their sales tax for the sake of local businesses .
This is completely feasible - Alaska , Delaware , Montana , New Hampshire and Oregon already have no sales tax.The money that consumers use to purchase goods was already taxed , twice .
First the government taxes their income , then the state takes a slice too .
Do we really need to tax people 's money as it goes into the wallet AND as it goes out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To look at this another way, perhaps Amazon's 5-10\% price advantage will pressure the states to drop their sales tax for the sake of local businesses.
This is completely feasible - Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon already have no sales tax.The money that consumers use to purchase goods was already taxed, twice.
First the government taxes their income, then the state takes a slice too.
Do we really need to tax people's money as it goes into the wallet AND as it goes out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134572</id>
	<title>Its called the US Constitution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258451460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The federal government has the SOLE authority to tax and regulate interstate commerce.</p><p>If I were in Amazon's shoes I'd tell each of the states to shove it until the federal government says that interstate commerce is liable for each state's sales taxes - which coincidentally - is exactly what Amazon is doing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The federal government has the SOLE authority to tax and regulate interstate commerce.If I were in Amazon 's shoes I 'd tell each of the states to shove it until the federal government says that interstate commerce is liable for each state 's sales taxes - which coincidentally - is exactly what Amazon is doing : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The federal government has the SOLE authority to tax and regulate interstate commerce.If I were in Amazon's shoes I'd tell each of the states to shove it until the federal government says that interstate commerce is liable for each state's sales taxes - which coincidentally - is exactly what Amazon is doing :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30140060</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, taxes, taxes</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1258482360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The money that consumers use to purchase goods was already taxed, twice.</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...unless it wasn't...</p><p>Ever gone out of state?  Out of the country?  Lots of people do.  Eliminating sales tax completely would give a considerable disadvantage to areas with few locals, and lots of travelers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The money that consumers use to purchase goods was already taxed , twice .
...unless it was n't...Ever gone out of state ?
Out of the country ?
Lots of people do .
Eliminating sales tax completely would give a considerable disadvantage to areas with few locals , and lots of travelers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The money that consumers use to purchase goods was already taxed, twice.
...unless it wasn't...Ever gone out of state?
Out of the country?
Lots of people do.
Eliminating sales tax completely would give a considerable disadvantage to areas with few locals, and lots of travelers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134726</id>
	<title>Re:Legally due</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1258451940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it IS leggaly due in this state, but Amazon is not IN this state, so this state has little resource to persue legally.  A federal case must be filed as this is an interstate commerce issue.</p><p>In leiu uf federal support, there's a field on your taxes to itemize taxes-unpaid interstate purchases, and instead of going after Amazon, they go after their own citizens, which is tiring, expensive, and meets resistance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it IS leggaly due in this state , but Amazon is not IN this state , so this state has little resource to persue legally .
A federal case must be filed as this is an interstate commerce issue.In leiu uf federal support , there 's a field on your taxes to itemize taxes-unpaid interstate purchases , and instead of going after Amazon , they go after their own citizens , which is tiring , expensive , and meets resistance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it IS leggaly due in this state, but Amazon is not IN this state, so this state has little resource to persue legally.
A federal case must be filed as this is an interstate commerce issue.In leiu uf federal support, there's a field on your taxes to itemize taxes-unpaid interstate purchases, and instead of going after Amazon, they go after their own citizens, which is tiring, expensive, and meets resistance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134332</id>
	<title>Taxes: a good thing?</title>
	<author>d34dluk3</author>
	<datestamp>1258450740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does everyone on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. always react with outrage when someone or some corporation does their best to avoid taxes? I personally hate taxes, hate the fact that the government basically steals a third of my paycheck every month. I have nothing but sympathy for someone who's doing their best to avoid them. </p><p>Where does the outrage come from? </p><p>Misguided moralizing about obedience to government? </p><p>Irritation that someone else is avoiding taxes when you're not? </p><p>Enlighten me, please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does everyone on / .
always react with outrage when someone or some corporation does their best to avoid taxes ?
I personally hate taxes , hate the fact that the government basically steals a third of my paycheck every month .
I have nothing but sympathy for someone who 's doing their best to avoid them .
Where does the outrage come from ?
Misguided moralizing about obedience to government ?
Irritation that someone else is avoiding taxes when you 're not ?
Enlighten me , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does everyone on /.
always react with outrage when someone or some corporation does their best to avoid taxes?
I personally hate taxes, hate the fact that the government basically steals a third of my paycheck every month.
I have nothing but sympathy for someone who's doing their best to avoid them.
Where does the outrage come from?
Misguided moralizing about obedience to government?
Irritation that someone else is avoiding taxes when you're not?
Enlighten me, please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135996</id>
	<title>Hear hear!</title>
	<author>bobobobo</author>
	<datestamp>1258456440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm right there with you.  Ever since the sales tax has gone above 9\%(for us) in this idiotic state, I've switched over to making as many purchases as I can online.  That amazon prime fee, has more than paid for itself in the amount I've saved in not having to pay the state tax man.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm right there with you .
Ever since the sales tax has gone above 9 \ % ( for us ) in this idiotic state , I 've switched over to making as many purchases as I can online .
That amazon prime fee , has more than paid for itself in the amount I 've saved in not having to pay the state tax man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm right there with you.
Ever since the sales tax has gone above 9\%(for us) in this idiotic state, I've switched over to making as many purchases as I can online.
That amazon prime fee, has more than paid for itself in the amount I've saved in not having to pay the state tax man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134266</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30153236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30140060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30143372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30150936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30153168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30141660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30154418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30141760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30140282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30140830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30146318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_1929217_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30142552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30140282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30141704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30140830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30142552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30153236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30141660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30154418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30140060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134728
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135944
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30141760
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30153168
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30143372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30146318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30137678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30150936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30135168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30136392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30138944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30134604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30139102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_1929217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_1929217.30133648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
