<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_28_119259</id>
	<title>NY Times, LA Times Want Amazon To Collect More State Taxes</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1261998420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"Recalling that CEO Jeff Bezos originally explored <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/05/starwave2.html?page=0\%2C1">placing Amazon.com on an Indian Reservation</a> near San Francisco to 'have access to talent without all the tax consequences,' the NY Times argues it's time to put an end to the e-tailer's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/business/27digi.html">'entity isolation' tax-avoidance games</a>. The LA Times chimes in, saying Amazon's claims that collecting sales tax constitute an undue burden are '<a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik24-2009dec24,0,487418.column?page=1&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;track=rss&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed\%3A\%20latimes\%2Fbusiness\%20(L.A.\%20Times\%20-\%20Business)&amp;utm\_content=Google\%20Reader&amp;utm\_source=feedburner">worth a horselaugh</a>,' noting that Amazon boasts it has no problem keeping track of millions of unique products."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Recalling that CEO Jeff Bezos originally explored placing Amazon.com on an Indian Reservation near San Francisco to 'have access to talent without all the tax consequences, ' the NY Times argues it 's time to put an end to the e-tailer 's 'entity isolation ' tax-avoidance games .
The LA Times chimes in , saying Amazon 's claims that collecting sales tax constitute an undue burden are 'worth a horselaugh, ' noting that Amazon boasts it has no problem keeping track of millions of unique products .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Recalling that CEO Jeff Bezos originally explored placing Amazon.com on an Indian Reservation near San Francisco to 'have access to talent without all the tax consequences,' the NY Times argues it's time to put an end to the e-tailer's 'entity isolation' tax-avoidance games.
The LA Times chimes in, saying Amazon's claims that collecting sales tax constitute an undue burden are 'worth a horselaugh,' noting that Amazon boasts it has no problem keeping track of millions of unique products.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571262</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262016840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree. I can think of this similar to the licensing cost of Software.<br>As a Network Admin I didn't really mind buying software, but I couldn't stand having to "Manage" the licenses. It's a non productive task and doesn't give the business any advantages.</p><p>The taxes are similar for Amazon, it's a non productive task that doesn't give them any values. They don't mind spending time and money improving their products database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree .
I can think of this similar to the licensing cost of Software.As a Network Admin I did n't really mind buying software , but I could n't stand having to " Manage " the licenses .
It 's a non productive task and does n't give the business any advantages.The taxes are similar for Amazon , it 's a non productive task that does n't give them any values .
They do n't mind spending time and money improving their products database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree.
I can think of this similar to the licensing cost of Software.As a Network Admin I didn't really mind buying software, but I couldn't stand having to "Manage" the licenses.
It's a non productive task and doesn't give the business any advantages.The taxes are similar for Amazon, it's a non productive task that doesn't give them any values.
They don't mind spending time and money improving their products database.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690</id>
	<title>Smaller companies?</title>
	<author>alzoron</author>
	<datestamp>1262003700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might not be an undue burden to Amazon, but what about smaller online companies?  You could use software to manage the collecting of sales tax for everything but the real problem comes to sending off that money to every town, county, and state that collects sales tax.  Someone buys something for a couple bucks and suddenly you have to send payments of a few cents to three different places.  Even if you save it all up and send it bi-yearly you could be looking at thousands of separate payments based on how widespread your client base is.</p><p>You can't just look at a huge company with millions in revenue and make a one size fits it all decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might not be an undue burden to Amazon , but what about smaller online companies ?
You could use software to manage the collecting of sales tax for everything but the real problem comes to sending off that money to every town , county , and state that collects sales tax .
Someone buys something for a couple bucks and suddenly you have to send payments of a few cents to three different places .
Even if you save it all up and send it bi-yearly you could be looking at thousands of separate payments based on how widespread your client base is.You ca n't just look at a huge company with millions in revenue and make a one size fits it all decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might not be an undue burden to Amazon, but what about smaller online companies?
You could use software to manage the collecting of sales tax for everything but the real problem comes to sending off that money to every town, county, and state that collects sales tax.
Someone buys something for a couple bucks and suddenly you have to send payments of a few cents to three different places.
Even if you save it all up and send it bi-yearly you could be looking at thousands of separate payments based on how widespread your client base is.You can't just look at a huge company with millions in revenue and make a one size fits it all decision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30577322</id>
	<title>Re:No Way!</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1262005080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is an attempt to please brick and mortar stores who want to push electronic sales into the toilet. On line sales already carry a great burden in shipping costs. If you add taxes on top of shipping costs you kill online sales completely.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not even that, really. Lawmakers have been trying for years to get taxes on interstate Internet sales, but there are always roadblocks:</p><p>1. Businesses claim it would be too burdensome. They're right, but small businesses would be the ones most heavily burdened and the last thing most politicians want is to make enemies with small businesses.</p><p>2. No one can arrive at a consensus as to what as interstate sales tax would be for. Other than governments who just want more money and brick-and-mortar stores who perceive online sales as hurting their business and only want to strike a blow to the online retailers. (I could write a book on the inanity of that last point, by the way.)</p><p>3. No one can arrive at a consensus as to how to split the money up.</p><p>4. The Supreme Court has routinely ruled interstate sales taxes as unconstitutional because they restrict interstate commerce. States have tried to do all kinds of protectionist things including import/export tariffs, charging tolls on semi trucks that pass through a state without making deliveries, etc. All have failed and an interstate sales tax will fail for the same reason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an attempt to please brick and mortar stores who want to push electronic sales into the toilet .
On line sales already carry a great burden in shipping costs .
If you add taxes on top of shipping costs you kill online sales completely.It 's not even that , really .
Lawmakers have been trying for years to get taxes on interstate Internet sales , but there are always roadblocks : 1 .
Businesses claim it would be too burdensome .
They 're right , but small businesses would be the ones most heavily burdened and the last thing most politicians want is to make enemies with small businesses.2 .
No one can arrive at a consensus as to what as interstate sales tax would be for .
Other than governments who just want more money and brick-and-mortar stores who perceive online sales as hurting their business and only want to strike a blow to the online retailers .
( I could write a book on the inanity of that last point , by the way. ) 3 .
No one can arrive at a consensus as to how to split the money up.4 .
The Supreme Court has routinely ruled interstate sales taxes as unconstitutional because they restrict interstate commerce .
States have tried to do all kinds of protectionist things including import/export tariffs , charging tolls on semi trucks that pass through a state without making deliveries , etc .
All have failed and an interstate sales tax will fail for the same reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an attempt to please brick and mortar stores who want to push electronic sales into the toilet.
On line sales already carry a great burden in shipping costs.
If you add taxes on top of shipping costs you kill online sales completely.It's not even that, really.
Lawmakers have been trying for years to get taxes on interstate Internet sales, but there are always roadblocks:1.
Businesses claim it would be too burdensome.
They're right, but small businesses would be the ones most heavily burdened and the last thing most politicians want is to make enemies with small businesses.2.
No one can arrive at a consensus as to what as interstate sales tax would be for.
Other than governments who just want more money and brick-and-mortar stores who perceive online sales as hurting their business and only want to strike a blow to the online retailers.
(I could write a book on the inanity of that last point, by the way.)3.
No one can arrive at a consensus as to how to split the money up.4.
The Supreme Court has routinely ruled interstate sales taxes as unconstitutional because they restrict interstate commerce.
States have tried to do all kinds of protectionist things including import/export tariffs, charging tolls on semi trucks that pass through a state without making deliveries, etc.
All have failed and an interstate sales tax will fail for the same reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30578734</id>
	<title>Of course</title>
	<author>TheABomb</author>
	<datestamp>1262016780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... these increasingly irrelevant olde m&#230;dia dinosaurs are going to take any tack they can to stick it to the interwebs and the customers who aren't suckling at their teats.

The sad thing is that too many people in this country seem to think that increasing taxes during a recession is a good idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... these increasingly irrelevant olde m   dia dinosaurs are going to take any tack they can to stick it to the interwebs and the customers who are n't suckling at their teats .
The sad thing is that too many people in this country seem to think that increasing taxes during a recession is a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... these increasingly irrelevant olde mædia dinosaurs are going to take any tack they can to stick it to the interwebs and the customers who aren't suckling at their teats.
The sad thing is that too many people in this country seem to think that increasing taxes during a recession is a good idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570186</id>
	<title>Yes. taxes are a problem more because of their</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1262010180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cost to implement and track. they are accounting nightmares to keep up with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cost to implement and track .
they are accounting nightmares to keep up with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cost to implement and track.
they are accounting nightmares to keep up with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569880</id>
	<title>The dangers of stupid taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262006580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you think about it, the problem with most of the taxes imposed by states is that the idea is to pay for government provided services.    Now, for out of state businesses, shouldn't the ONLY real burden be on the transit systems(roads and rails)?    The postal system already charges money for delivering things, so really, it is just about transit systems.    Sales taxes, such as they are, are a bit foolish to impose on out of state entities since the equipment that handles the actual exchange of money is generally not in the state demanding that sales taxes are collected.    Basically, if a financial transaction takes place outside of a state, I don't feel that state has the right to demand money for the transaction.</p><p>Now, a national sales tax would eliminate this issue, or some other system.</p><p>The real problem that many states are running into is that they are run like governments, spending money they don't have and will NEVER have to provide services that will never end up with a net profit.   Paying employees too much money, giving too much PAID time off(including the dozens of government holidays where other businesses stay open), and really, just spending too much for the tax income they bring in.    If a private business were to try operating like that, they would be bankrupt within a year.    So, the states are all crying that they are broke while paying assistants to government employees upwards of $80,000 per year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you think about it , the problem with most of the taxes imposed by states is that the idea is to pay for government provided services .
Now , for out of state businesses , should n't the ONLY real burden be on the transit systems ( roads and rails ) ?
The postal system already charges money for delivering things , so really , it is just about transit systems .
Sales taxes , such as they are , are a bit foolish to impose on out of state entities since the equipment that handles the actual exchange of money is generally not in the state demanding that sales taxes are collected .
Basically , if a financial transaction takes place outside of a state , I do n't feel that state has the right to demand money for the transaction.Now , a national sales tax would eliminate this issue , or some other system.The real problem that many states are running into is that they are run like governments , spending money they do n't have and will NEVER have to provide services that will never end up with a net profit .
Paying employees too much money , giving too much PAID time off ( including the dozens of government holidays where other businesses stay open ) , and really , just spending too much for the tax income they bring in .
If a private business were to try operating like that , they would be bankrupt within a year .
So , the states are all crying that they are broke while paying assistants to government employees upwards of $ 80,000 per year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you think about it, the problem with most of the taxes imposed by states is that the idea is to pay for government provided services.
Now, for out of state businesses, shouldn't the ONLY real burden be on the transit systems(roads and rails)?
The postal system already charges money for delivering things, so really, it is just about transit systems.
Sales taxes, such as they are, are a bit foolish to impose on out of state entities since the equipment that handles the actual exchange of money is generally not in the state demanding that sales taxes are collected.
Basically, if a financial transaction takes place outside of a state, I don't feel that state has the right to demand money for the transaction.Now, a national sales tax would eliminate this issue, or some other system.The real problem that many states are running into is that they are run like governments, spending money they don't have and will NEVER have to provide services that will never end up with a net profit.
Paying employees too much money, giving too much PAID time off(including the dozens of government holidays where other businesses stay open), and really, just spending too much for the tax income they bring in.
If a private business were to try operating like that, they would be bankrupt within a year.
So, the states are all crying that they are broke while paying assistants to government employees upwards of $80,000 per year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574606</id>
	<title>Re:Smaller companies?</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1262032380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You could use software to manage the collecting of sales tax for everything but the real problem comes to sending off that money to every town, county, and state that collects sales tax."</p><p>If so, then the best way to force a change to the system is to require the system be used by EVERYONE.  It was my understanding that the taxes went to the State in question and it was THEIR job to redistribute them.  Of course, I imagine that varies by State.</p><p>I realize that Slashdot is a diverse group of people.  But the goal posts seem to keep getting moved on this topic.  First it was too hard to collect the taxes.  Then it's too hard to distribute them.  Sorry, if collecting taxes is too difficult and time consuming, don't go into business.  It's certainly one of the reasons that I don't want to start a business.  If you feel that sales taxes are a bad idea and want to abolish them, that's okay too.  But I wish people wouldn't whine about the difficulty of doing something when it is the thing that they don't like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You could use software to manage the collecting of sales tax for everything but the real problem comes to sending off that money to every town , county , and state that collects sales tax .
" If so , then the best way to force a change to the system is to require the system be used by EVERYONE .
It was my understanding that the taxes went to the State in question and it was THEIR job to redistribute them .
Of course , I imagine that varies by State.I realize that Slashdot is a diverse group of people .
But the goal posts seem to keep getting moved on this topic .
First it was too hard to collect the taxes .
Then it 's too hard to distribute them .
Sorry , if collecting taxes is too difficult and time consuming , do n't go into business .
It 's certainly one of the reasons that I do n't want to start a business .
If you feel that sales taxes are a bad idea and want to abolish them , that 's okay too .
But I wish people would n't whine about the difficulty of doing something when it is the thing that they do n't like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You could use software to manage the collecting of sales tax for everything but the real problem comes to sending off that money to every town, county, and state that collects sales tax.
"If so, then the best way to force a change to the system is to require the system be used by EVERYONE.
It was my understanding that the taxes went to the State in question and it was THEIR job to redistribute them.
Of course, I imagine that varies by State.I realize that Slashdot is a diverse group of people.
But the goal posts seem to keep getting moved on this topic.
First it was too hard to collect the taxes.
Then it's too hard to distribute them.
Sorry, if collecting taxes is too difficult and time consuming, don't go into business.
It's certainly one of the reasons that I don't want to start a business.
If you feel that sales taxes are a bad idea and want to abolish them, that's okay too.
But I wish people wouldn't whine about the difficulty of doing something when it is the thing that they don't like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576954</id>
	<title>Helping getting Govt Small</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262002440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By buying from Amazon I help shrink Govt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By buying from Amazon I help shrink Govt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By buying from Amazon I help shrink Govt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30572428</id>
	<title>Re:Once again, it's the government's fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262022480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and thereby making local government irrelevant.</p><p>A one-size-fits-all is great if you want to centralize government; otherwise, this is an overly broad solution for solving a relatively narrow issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and thereby making local government irrelevant.A one-size-fits-all is great if you want to centralize government ; otherwise , this is an overly broad solution for solving a relatively narrow issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and thereby making local government irrelevant.A one-size-fits-all is great if you want to centralize government; otherwise, this is an overly broad solution for solving a relatively narrow issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571936</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon == Borg</title>
	<author>Golddess</author>
	<datestamp>1262020200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Amazon needs to start playing by the same rules as everyone else.</p></div><p>You're absolutely right, they should play by the rules of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail\_order" title="wikipedia.org">everyone else</a> [wikipedia.org].<br>
<br>
<i>In the United States, an advantage of this type of shopping is that the merchant is typically not required by law to add sales tax to the price of the goods, unless they have a physical presence in the customers' state. Instead, most states require the resident purchaser to pay applicable taxes. There has been periodic discussion about amending the law to make these sales taxable.</i> <br>
<br>
Offhand, I don't know what states Amazon has a physical presence in, but per the law as it is written today, in those states and <i>only</i> those states should they be required to pay sales tax.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon needs to start playing by the same rules as everyone else.You 're absolutely right , they should play by the rules of everyone else [ wikipedia.org ] .
In the United States , an advantage of this type of shopping is that the merchant is typically not required by law to add sales tax to the price of the goods , unless they have a physical presence in the customers ' state .
Instead , most states require the resident purchaser to pay applicable taxes .
There has been periodic discussion about amending the law to make these sales taxable .
Offhand , I do n't know what states Amazon has a physical presence in , but per the law as it is written today , in those states and only those states should they be required to pay sales tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon needs to start playing by the same rules as everyone else.You're absolutely right, they should play by the rules of everyone else [wikipedia.org].
In the United States, an advantage of this type of shopping is that the merchant is typically not required by law to add sales tax to the price of the goods, unless they have a physical presence in the customers' state.
Instead, most states require the resident purchaser to pay applicable taxes.
There has been periodic discussion about amending the law to make these sales taxable.
Offhand, I don't know what states Amazon has a physical presence in, but per the law as it is written today, in those states and only those states should they be required to pay sales tax.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30577170</id>
	<title>Re:Let the liberal media pay taxes for once.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262004000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How about this? Let's have the liberal media pay its fair share. I say that intellectual property should be property taxed. Shouldn't the New York Times and the LA Times be charged a property tax for every back article they have ever written?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Cool, let's charge the fuck out of Faux News too, and let's also charge the Fox Network, imagine how much money we could beat out of that evil old fuck Rupert Murdoch on taxes for all of the Fox Network IP in shows such as <i>The Simpsons</i>, <i>Family Guy</i>, <i>American Dad</i>, etc.
</p><p>
While we're at it let's have a 100 percent income surtax on anyone who uses the phrase "liberal media". And anyone who uses the phrase "lieberal media" gets the 100 percent income surtax, two<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.45 slugs in the back of their head and we harvest their organs for sale.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this ?
Let 's have the liberal media pay its fair share .
I say that intellectual property should be property taxed .
Should n't the New York Times and the LA Times be charged a property tax for every back article they have ever written ?
Cool , let 's charge the fuck out of Faux News too , and let 's also charge the Fox Network , imagine how much money we could beat out of that evil old fuck Rupert Murdoch on taxes for all of the Fox Network IP in shows such as The Simpsons , Family Guy , American Dad , etc .
While we 're at it let 's have a 100 percent income surtax on anyone who uses the phrase " liberal media " .
And anyone who uses the phrase " lieberal media " gets the 100 percent income surtax , two .45 slugs in the back of their head and we harvest their organs for sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this?
Let's have the liberal media pay its fair share.
I say that intellectual property should be property taxed.
Shouldn't the New York Times and the LA Times be charged a property tax for every back article they have ever written?
Cool, let's charge the fuck out of Faux News too, and let's also charge the Fox Network, imagine how much money we could beat out of that evil old fuck Rupert Murdoch on taxes for all of the Fox Network IP in shows such as The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, etc.
While we're at it let's have a 100 percent income surtax on anyone who uses the phrase "liberal media".
And anyone who uses the phrase "lieberal media" gets the 100 percent income surtax, two .45 slugs in the back of their head and we harvest their organs for sale.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571182</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>sribe</author>
	<datestamp>1262016360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In many states this varies by individual city and town.</p></div><p>No, it can vary <b>within</b> city and town by arbitrary boundaries set up for whatever purpose the city wants, right down to a handful of houses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In many states this varies by individual city and town.No , it can vary within city and town by arbitrary boundaries set up for whatever purpose the city wants , right down to a handful of houses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many states this varies by individual city and town.No, it can vary within city and town by arbitrary boundaries set up for whatever purpose the city wants, right down to a handful of houses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570128</id>
	<title>Totally agree Re:Smaller companies?</title>
	<author>giladpn</author>
	<datestamp>1262009700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alzoron has it right! In fact, in any NEW project, even for a large company, trying to get the myriad payments right is extremely onerous.
<br> <br>
I happen to have experience with the topic from a project I did - even if you have a big budget and months of time its not easy.
<br> <br>
Remember that the internet is global. If the USA charges sales tax based on the location of the CUSTOMER, then all countries in the world can and would do the same.
<br> <br>
Imagine trying to get that right given millions of towns and counties all over the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alzoron has it right !
In fact , in any NEW project , even for a large company , trying to get the myriad payments right is extremely onerous .
I happen to have experience with the topic from a project I did - even if you have a big budget and months of time its not easy .
Remember that the internet is global .
If the USA charges sales tax based on the location of the CUSTOMER , then all countries in the world can and would do the same .
Imagine trying to get that right given millions of towns and counties all over the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alzoron has it right!
In fact, in any NEW project, even for a large company, trying to get the myriad payments right is extremely onerous.
I happen to have experience with the topic from a project I did - even if you have a big budget and months of time its not easy.
Remember that the internet is global.
If the USA charges sales tax based on the location of the CUSTOMER, then all countries in the world can and would do the same.
Imagine trying to get that right given millions of towns and counties all over the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569990</id>
	<title>I wonder if they would like an opt-in program?</title>
	<author>MMC Monster</author>
	<datestamp>1262008020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you buy something, amazon brings up a page that states:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; We understand that your state, and possibly city and local, governments levy taxes that may include taxes on the things that you purchased.  Click here to send a report at the end of the month to the state, city, and local authorities regarding your purchases.</p><p>It's then up to the individual to determine if they want the state to take care of the accounting or if they want to do it themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you buy something , amazon brings up a page that states :     We understand that your state , and possibly city and local , governments levy taxes that may include taxes on the things that you purchased .
Click here to send a report at the end of the month to the state , city , and local authorities regarding your purchases.It 's then up to the individual to determine if they want the state to take care of the accounting or if they want to do it themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you buy something, amazon brings up a page that states:
    We understand that your state, and possibly city and local, governments levy taxes that may include taxes on the things that you purchased.
Click here to send a report at the end of the month to the state, city, and local authorities regarding your purchases.It's then up to the individual to determine if they want the state to take care of the accounting or if they want to do it themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569808</id>
	<title>Re:Note the lack of mentioning all the other taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262005500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are missing the point of the article, the articles are not proposing that Amazon et al. pay one more cent of tax on their income just collect and remit to the proper taxing authorities taxes that are legally owed by the purchaser of the goods. Would it increase the cost of doing business for e-commerce firms, yes but so what? The cost of doing business is part of any business plan. Amazon and its ilk are utilizing a legal loophole to get an unfair advantage over local merchants.</p><p>The handwriting is on the wall, there are too many states hurting for revenue. The current environment isn't fair, isn't sustainable, isn't long for this world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are missing the point of the article , the articles are not proposing that Amazon et al .
pay one more cent of tax on their income just collect and remit to the proper taxing authorities taxes that are legally owed by the purchaser of the goods .
Would it increase the cost of doing business for e-commerce firms , yes but so what ?
The cost of doing business is part of any business plan .
Amazon and its ilk are utilizing a legal loophole to get an unfair advantage over local merchants.The handwriting is on the wall , there are too many states hurting for revenue .
The current environment is n't fair , is n't sustainable , is n't long for this world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are missing the point of the article, the articles are not proposing that Amazon et al.
pay one more cent of tax on their income just collect and remit to the proper taxing authorities taxes that are legally owed by the purchaser of the goods.
Would it increase the cost of doing business for e-commerce firms, yes but so what?
The cost of doing business is part of any business plan.
Amazon and its ilk are utilizing a legal loophole to get an unfair advantage over local merchants.The handwriting is on the wall, there are too many states hurting for revenue.
The current environment isn't fair, isn't sustainable, isn't long for this world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574194</id>
	<title>Services already exist</title>
	<author>raftpeople</author>
	<datestamp>1262030400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are companies that perform this exact service (VertexInc.com is one) and have since the 80's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are companies that perform this exact service ( VertexInc.com is one ) and have since the 80 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are companies that perform this exact service (VertexInc.com is one) and have since the 80's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</id>
	<title>Burden</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1262006520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, there is a real burden here.  A "brick" store only has to deal with exactly ONE tax rate, which is the rate for their physical location.  A chain of stores would only need to deal with this on a per-store basis.  However, the web retailer is expected to charge tax based not on their own physical location, but rather, the location of the customer ordering the merchandise.  This means keeping a database, and keeping it updated, for each and every single tax jurisdiction in the country.  In many states this varies by individual city and town.  There are thousands of these.  In some cases they are even split across zip codes.  And it's not just rates to worry about.  Different jurisdictions have different exemptions of what products don't require a tax (food in one place, only perishable food in another, bath products might be included in another, school supplies exempted in a few, etc).</p><p>Then there is the issue of ensuring the taxes get paid to the proper government entity.  That and making sure people are not subverting the system by sending packages to other locations.</p><p>Some solutions to this are possible.</p><p>I suggest that instead of the stores charging the tax, the credit/debit card processor charge the tax.  The advantage of this is that they readily know the billing address of the account holder.  Their payments to the government entities would be more in bulk, instead of these governments getting thousands of small payments from all the "mom and pop" web sites that would be compliant with tax law changes.  The one change that would need to be made is each credit/debit charge would need to have split up according to product type classifications (a federal standard needed for that).</p><p>Another alternative is for a federal law that simply requires each of the states to submit ONE tax rate for the whole state, and accept a set of exemptions designated by that federal law, to be part of the inter-state tax program.  One other requirement is, to be a part of it, they treat in-state web retailers exactly the same as out-of-state (e.g. all or nothing).</p><p>The burden on web retailers is NOT a myth.  It is very real.  Amazon can probably handle it.  But you know the smaller retailers will be next, and eventually they will try to impose this on others.  Taxes are essential, but it needs to be kept simple.  Also, smaller retailers need to have a SINGLE (not 50) payment destinations (a central clearinghouse for this).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there is a real burden here .
A " brick " store only has to deal with exactly ONE tax rate , which is the rate for their physical location .
A chain of stores would only need to deal with this on a per-store basis .
However , the web retailer is expected to charge tax based not on their own physical location , but rather , the location of the customer ordering the merchandise .
This means keeping a database , and keeping it updated , for each and every single tax jurisdiction in the country .
In many states this varies by individual city and town .
There are thousands of these .
In some cases they are even split across zip codes .
And it 's not just rates to worry about .
Different jurisdictions have different exemptions of what products do n't require a tax ( food in one place , only perishable food in another , bath products might be included in another , school supplies exempted in a few , etc ) .Then there is the issue of ensuring the taxes get paid to the proper government entity .
That and making sure people are not subverting the system by sending packages to other locations.Some solutions to this are possible.I suggest that instead of the stores charging the tax , the credit/debit card processor charge the tax .
The advantage of this is that they readily know the billing address of the account holder .
Their payments to the government entities would be more in bulk , instead of these governments getting thousands of small payments from all the " mom and pop " web sites that would be compliant with tax law changes .
The one change that would need to be made is each credit/debit charge would need to have split up according to product type classifications ( a federal standard needed for that ) .Another alternative is for a federal law that simply requires each of the states to submit ONE tax rate for the whole state , and accept a set of exemptions designated by that federal law , to be part of the inter-state tax program .
One other requirement is , to be a part of it , they treat in-state web retailers exactly the same as out-of-state ( e.g .
all or nothing ) .The burden on web retailers is NOT a myth .
It is very real .
Amazon can probably handle it .
But you know the smaller retailers will be next , and eventually they will try to impose this on others .
Taxes are essential , but it needs to be kept simple .
Also , smaller retailers need to have a SINGLE ( not 50 ) payment destinations ( a central clearinghouse for this ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there is a real burden here.
A "brick" store only has to deal with exactly ONE tax rate, which is the rate for their physical location.
A chain of stores would only need to deal with this on a per-store basis.
However, the web retailer is expected to charge tax based not on their own physical location, but rather, the location of the customer ordering the merchandise.
This means keeping a database, and keeping it updated, for each and every single tax jurisdiction in the country.
In many states this varies by individual city and town.
There are thousands of these.
In some cases they are even split across zip codes.
And it's not just rates to worry about.
Different jurisdictions have different exemptions of what products don't require a tax (food in one place, only perishable food in another, bath products might be included in another, school supplies exempted in a few, etc).Then there is the issue of ensuring the taxes get paid to the proper government entity.
That and making sure people are not subverting the system by sending packages to other locations.Some solutions to this are possible.I suggest that instead of the stores charging the tax, the credit/debit card processor charge the tax.
The advantage of this is that they readily know the billing address of the account holder.
Their payments to the government entities would be more in bulk, instead of these governments getting thousands of small payments from all the "mom and pop" web sites that would be compliant with tax law changes.
The one change that would need to be made is each credit/debit charge would need to have split up according to product type classifications (a federal standard needed for that).Another alternative is for a federal law that simply requires each of the states to submit ONE tax rate for the whole state, and accept a set of exemptions designated by that federal law, to be part of the inter-state tax program.
One other requirement is, to be a part of it, they treat in-state web retailers exactly the same as out-of-state (e.g.
all or nothing).The burden on web retailers is NOT a myth.
It is very real.
Amazon can probably handle it.
But you know the smaller retailers will be next, and eventually they will try to impose this on others.
Taxes are essential, but it needs to be kept simple.
Also, smaller retailers need to have a SINGLE (not 50) payment destinations (a central clearinghouse for this).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569948</id>
	<title>Well to be fair</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1262007480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I say that intellectual property should be property taxed. Shouldn't the New York Times and the LA Times be charged a property tax for every back article they have ever written?</p></div><p>So shouldn't they pay nothing then? I mean you said they should be taxed on intellectual property but there's nothing intellectual about being a couple left-wing shill like those 2 rags.(And the Boston Globe Democrat who is pretty blatant about it.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say that intellectual property should be property taxed .
Should n't the New York Times and the LA Times be charged a property tax for every back article they have ever written ? So should n't they pay nothing then ?
I mean you said they should be taxed on intellectual property but there 's nothing intellectual about being a couple left-wing shill like those 2 rags .
( And the Boston Globe Democrat who is pretty blatant about it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I say that intellectual property should be property taxed.
Shouldn't the New York Times and the LA Times be charged a property tax for every back article they have ever written?So shouldn't they pay nothing then?
I mean you said they should be taxed on intellectual property but there's nothing intellectual about being a couple left-wing shill like those 2 rags.
(And the Boston Globe Democrat who is pretty blatant about it.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570362</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the future.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262011260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guys Corporations don't pay taxes, EVER, consumers do.  Amazon is following the law, states don't like the law.  Funny how it comes from two state which can't manage their budgets looking for handouts though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guys Corporations do n't pay taxes , EVER , consumers do .
Amazon is following the law , states do n't like the law .
Funny how it comes from two state which ca n't manage their budgets looking for handouts though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guys Corporations don't pay taxes, EVER, consumers do.
Amazon is following the law, states don't like the law.
Funny how it comes from two state which can't manage their budgets looking for handouts though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570108</id>
	<title>Taxless</title>
	<author>Plugh</author>
	<datestamp>1262009340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then there are states like <a href="http://freestateproject.org/" title="freestateproject.org">New Hampshire</a> [freestateproject.org], with no state sales tax (and no state income tax, either)<br>I guess these dying dinosaur newspapers will concentrate their efforts where governments are largest and extract the most wealth from the serfs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then there are states like New Hampshire [ freestateproject.org ] , with no state sales tax ( and no state income tax , either ) I guess these dying dinosaur newspapers will concentrate their efforts where governments are largest and extract the most wealth from the serfs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then there are states like New Hampshire [freestateproject.org], with no state sales tax (and no state income tax, either)I guess these dying dinosaur newspapers will concentrate their efforts where governments are largest and extract the most wealth from the serfs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30577330</id>
	<title>Re:Smaller companies?</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1262005080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's only for a single type of item.. Now add in all items with exception rates for each city/county/state and even different districts within cities, counties and states.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's only for a single type of item.. Now add in all items with exception rates for each city/county/state and even different districts within cities , counties and states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's only for a single type of item.. Now add in all items with exception rates for each city/county/state and even different districts within cities, counties and states.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576736</id>
	<title>Re:Note the lack of mentioning all the other taxes</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1262000880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>California is getting zero tax revenue from Amazon at the moment.</i> <br> <br>Then the issue is that CA is not enforcing its laws.  There is a use tax in CA, and if you buy something mail order, you are required to pay it.  Rather than educating people and enforcing the law, they are looking for Congress to force taxation without representation by creating new laws that give no more functionality than the current ones, other than the states would have fewer people to attack if something isn't what they like.  If they enforced the laws as written now, this would be a non-issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>California is getting zero tax revenue from Amazon at the moment .
Then the issue is that CA is not enforcing its laws .
There is a use tax in CA , and if you buy something mail order , you are required to pay it .
Rather than educating people and enforcing the law , they are looking for Congress to force taxation without representation by creating new laws that give no more functionality than the current ones , other than the states would have fewer people to attack if something is n't what they like .
If they enforced the laws as written now , this would be a non-issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>California is getting zero tax revenue from Amazon at the moment.
Then the issue is that CA is not enforcing its laws.
There is a use tax in CA, and if you buy something mail order, you are required to pay it.
Rather than educating people and enforcing the law, they are looking for Congress to force taxation without representation by creating new laws that give no more functionality than the current ones, other than the states would have fewer people to attack if something isn't what they like.
If they enforced the laws as written now, this would be a non-issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570352</id>
	<title>Re:Let the liberal media pay taxes for once.</title>
	<author>EastCoastSurfer</author>
	<datestamp>1262011140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess what else the two newspaper articles failed to make completely clear...that the 'someone' is you and me.  This isn't about Amazon paying more corporate tax, but Amazon collecting sales taxes from sales to everyday people.  The internet has given the average person a small but noticeable tax cut.  We obviously can't have the populace spending their money how they would want to, so we have to stop this right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess what else the two newspaper articles failed to make completely clear...that the 'someone ' is you and me .
This is n't about Amazon paying more corporate tax , but Amazon collecting sales taxes from sales to everyday people .
The internet has given the average person a small but noticeable tax cut .
We obviously ca n't have the populace spending their money how they would want to , so we have to stop this right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess what else the two newspaper articles failed to make completely clear...that the 'someone' is you and me.
This isn't about Amazon paying more corporate tax, but Amazon collecting sales taxes from sales to everyday people.
The internet has given the average person a small but noticeable tax cut.
We obviously can't have the populace spending their money how they would want to, so we have to stop this right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30575490</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261993920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; BTW, I am J2EE/PHP web developper who has already worked on an online store.<br>Then, even if this store was in the US, you still know nothing. The law hasn't changed here yet, so present-day internet tax calculations are minimal state-level-only, and most online businesses don't have to calculate any taxes at all.</p><p>Your physical French store example is exactly the same as a physical US store. It works in both because even the most naive implementation of the tax codes would only need a 1-to-1 product-to-tax mapping. The store has a distinct, stationary location and therefore only has to know one full set of rules.</p><p>If an online store in the US only had to collect top-level state taxes, that would not be impossible for even a small business. And in a best-case scenario, every state would be required to follow the same standard classification system and push its changes to a federally maintained database system that all online stores could query, and which would therefore absolve the online stores from being crushed to death by fines when the inevitable errors occur. (Actually, an even better-case scenario would be that there's a single internet sales tax rate, paid to a federal office which then passes it to the states proportionally to their local base sales tax... but that would be far too sane.)</p><p>But in realistic practice, there would be fifty state databases, each following a different format. Some third party software would exist that aggregates and translates this, but it would be expensive enough that some businesses wouldn't be able to afford it. And, with or without the third party software, there'd be no safety from fines when the inevitable mistakes happen, so businesses would need to pay for tax mistake insurance, which would again be expensive enough that some wouldn't be able to afford it.</p><p>If online business were subject to lower-level taxes - county, city/town/village, and so on - then online business would become outright impossible for anyone but giants like Amazon, and difficult even for the physical-store giants like WalMart. Seriously, those tax regions are nested/overlapping, their classifications of items are unique and subject to change at any time, and their very existence/boundaries are also subject to change at any time; there would be something on the order of 50000 distinct tax regions, not 50. Possibly even worse, since zoning laws for business/industry/residential areas would apply, meaning every street would have a different tax codes. It'd take an army of lawyer-programmers to translate legalese into software, working non-stop to keep it all up to date. It'd be like comparing the easy task of "tracking the average temperature at a single location" to the damn-near-impossible task of tracking the average daily temperature of the surface of the entire nation at one-square-meter resolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; BTW , I am J2EE/PHP web developper who has already worked on an online store.Then , even if this store was in the US , you still know nothing .
The law has n't changed here yet , so present-day internet tax calculations are minimal state-level-only , and most online businesses do n't have to calculate any taxes at all.Your physical French store example is exactly the same as a physical US store .
It works in both because even the most naive implementation of the tax codes would only need a 1-to-1 product-to-tax mapping .
The store has a distinct , stationary location and therefore only has to know one full set of rules.If an online store in the US only had to collect top-level state taxes , that would not be impossible for even a small business .
And in a best-case scenario , every state would be required to follow the same standard classification system and push its changes to a federally maintained database system that all online stores could query , and which would therefore absolve the online stores from being crushed to death by fines when the inevitable errors occur .
( Actually , an even better-case scenario would be that there 's a single internet sales tax rate , paid to a federal office which then passes it to the states proportionally to their local base sales tax... but that would be far too sane .
) But in realistic practice , there would be fifty state databases , each following a different format .
Some third party software would exist that aggregates and translates this , but it would be expensive enough that some businesses would n't be able to afford it .
And , with or without the third party software , there 'd be no safety from fines when the inevitable mistakes happen , so businesses would need to pay for tax mistake insurance , which would again be expensive enough that some would n't be able to afford it.If online business were subject to lower-level taxes - county , city/town/village , and so on - then online business would become outright impossible for anyone but giants like Amazon , and difficult even for the physical-store giants like WalMart .
Seriously , those tax regions are nested/overlapping , their classifications of items are unique and subject to change at any time , and their very existence/boundaries are also subject to change at any time ; there would be something on the order of 50000 distinct tax regions , not 50 .
Possibly even worse , since zoning laws for business/industry/residential areas would apply , meaning every street would have a different tax codes .
It 'd take an army of lawyer-programmers to translate legalese into software , working non-stop to keep it all up to date .
It 'd be like comparing the easy task of " tracking the average temperature at a single location " to the damn-near-impossible task of tracking the average daily temperature of the surface of the entire nation at one-square-meter resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; BTW, I am J2EE/PHP web developper who has already worked on an online store.Then, even if this store was in the US, you still know nothing.
The law hasn't changed here yet, so present-day internet tax calculations are minimal state-level-only, and most online businesses don't have to calculate any taxes at all.Your physical French store example is exactly the same as a physical US store.
It works in both because even the most naive implementation of the tax codes would only need a 1-to-1 product-to-tax mapping.
The store has a distinct, stationary location and therefore only has to know one full set of rules.If an online store in the US only had to collect top-level state taxes, that would not be impossible for even a small business.
And in a best-case scenario, every state would be required to follow the same standard classification system and push its changes to a federally maintained database system that all online stores could query, and which would therefore absolve the online stores from being crushed to death by fines when the inevitable errors occur.
(Actually, an even better-case scenario would be that there's a single internet sales tax rate, paid to a federal office which then passes it to the states proportionally to their local base sales tax... but that would be far too sane.
)But in realistic practice, there would be fifty state databases, each following a different format.
Some third party software would exist that aggregates and translates this, but it would be expensive enough that some businesses wouldn't be able to afford it.
And, with or without the third party software, there'd be no safety from fines when the inevitable mistakes happen, so businesses would need to pay for tax mistake insurance, which would again be expensive enough that some wouldn't be able to afford it.If online business were subject to lower-level taxes - county, city/town/village, and so on - then online business would become outright impossible for anyone but giants like Amazon, and difficult even for the physical-store giants like WalMart.
Seriously, those tax regions are nested/overlapping, their classifications of items are unique and subject to change at any time, and their very existence/boundaries are also subject to change at any time; there would be something on the order of 50000 distinct tax regions, not 50.
Possibly even worse, since zoning laws for business/industry/residential areas would apply, meaning every street would have a different tax codes.
It'd take an army of lawyer-programmers to translate legalese into software, working non-stop to keep it all up to date.
It'd be like comparing the easy task of "tracking the average temperature at a single location" to the damn-near-impossible task of tracking the average daily temperature of the surface of the entire nation at one-square-meter resolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30579762</id>
	<title>What's the News Media doing?</title>
	<author>tacocat</author>
	<datestamp>1262030040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't sound like News Media reporting the news.  It sounds like News Media trying to shape national policy.  And at who's bidding?</p><p>I think the bigger question isn't if Amazon should or should not be allowed to conduct business without sales tax but why are the NY Times and LA Times making a political issue of one company when they (LA &amp; NY) present themselves as mere reporters of the news.  This doesn't look like news, it looks like coercion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't sound like News Media reporting the news .
It sounds like News Media trying to shape national policy .
And at who 's bidding ? I think the bigger question is n't if Amazon should or should not be allowed to conduct business without sales tax but why are the NY Times and LA Times making a political issue of one company when they ( LA &amp; NY ) present themselves as mere reporters of the news .
This does n't look like news , it looks like coercion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't sound like News Media reporting the news.
It sounds like News Media trying to shape national policy.
And at who's bidding?I think the bigger question isn't if Amazon should or should not be allowed to conduct business without sales tax but why are the NY Times and LA Times making a political issue of one company when they (LA &amp; NY) present themselves as mere reporters of the news.
This doesn't look like news, it looks like coercion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571958</id>
	<title>Re:Burden???</title>
	<author>jackb\_guppy</author>
	<datestamp>1262020320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Burden??? What Burden???</p><p>It is database issue with GIS lookup.</p><p>If Amazon is already doing this Washington State, then the hard part is over, since the tax districts in Washing State follow the Elementary School Districts as part of the boundaries.</p><p>Personally, the USPS (or even FedEx and UPS) should step up and be the "tax experts".  Since they validate the address (hence GIS) they can determine the correct rate from the over 160k districts in US.</p><p>GIS is important since a given address maybe on City, County, State, Federal land and different rates apply.</p><p>I did this software for a large bug company.  Had to get the correct rate for almost 10 million addresses, since the "cash register" is at the service location.  It is not hard, but once a month we had a service supply us new tables.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Burden ? ? ?
What Burden ? ?
? It is database issue with GIS lookup.If Amazon is already doing this Washington State , then the hard part is over , since the tax districts in Washing State follow the Elementary School Districts as part of the boundaries.Personally , the USPS ( or even FedEx and UPS ) should step up and be the " tax experts " .
Since they validate the address ( hence GIS ) they can determine the correct rate from the over 160k districts in US.GIS is important since a given address maybe on City , County , State , Federal land and different rates apply.I did this software for a large bug company .
Had to get the correct rate for almost 10 million addresses , since the " cash register " is at the service location .
It is not hard , but once a month we had a service supply us new tables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Burden???
What Burden??
?It is database issue with GIS lookup.If Amazon is already doing this Washington State, then the hard part is over, since the tax districts in Washing State follow the Elementary School Districts as part of the boundaries.Personally, the USPS (or even FedEx and UPS) should step up and be the "tax experts".
Since they validate the address (hence GIS) they can determine the correct rate from the over 160k districts in US.GIS is important since a given address maybe on City, County, State, Federal land and different rates apply.I did this software for a large bug company.
Had to get the correct rate for almost 10 million addresses, since the "cash register" is at the service location.
It is not hard, but once a month we had a service supply us new tables.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30575258</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>nEoN nOoDlE</author>
	<datestamp>1261992600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Also, smaller retailers need to have a SINGLE (not 50) payment destinations (a central clearinghouse for this)</i></p><p>Someone could make a pretty penny starting a company that does such a thing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , smaller retailers need to have a SINGLE ( not 50 ) payment destinations ( a central clearinghouse for this ) Someone could make a pretty penny starting a company that does such a thing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, smaller retailers need to have a SINGLE (not 50) payment destinations (a central clearinghouse for this)Someone could make a pretty penny starting a company that does such a thing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570318</id>
	<title>Part of the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262010900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The special laws and money reservations get is beyond stupid.  I know a few native american's (another stupid term) in my area that get monthly checks for a couple grand.<br> <br>

Fuck. That. Shit.<br> <br>

I could understand the whole sovereign nation within a nation thing if they actually lived the way they did in the 17th century.  But they don't.  If they want free money and their own set of laws they shouldn't be able to use the technology that the white man gave them.  It's not like there's any shortage of wilderness in the US either.<br> <br>

Laws like this only fuel racism, if we are all equal, then why the fuck do we have different laws for different races?<br> <br>

Sorry,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/end possibly offtopic rant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The special laws and money reservations get is beyond stupid .
I know a few native american 's ( another stupid term ) in my area that get monthly checks for a couple grand .
Fuck. That .
Shit . I could understand the whole sovereign nation within a nation thing if they actually lived the way they did in the 17th century .
But they do n't .
If they want free money and their own set of laws they should n't be able to use the technology that the white man gave them .
It 's not like there 's any shortage of wilderness in the US either .
Laws like this only fuel racism , if we are all equal , then why the fuck do we have different laws for different races ?
Sorry , /end possibly offtopic rant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The special laws and money reservations get is beyond stupid.
I know a few native american's (another stupid term) in my area that get monthly checks for a couple grand.
Fuck. That.
Shit. 

I could understand the whole sovereign nation within a nation thing if they actually lived the way they did in the 17th century.
But they don't.
If they want free money and their own set of laws they shouldn't be able to use the technology that the white man gave them.
It's not like there's any shortage of wilderness in the US either.
Laws like this only fuel racism, if we are all equal, then why the fuck do we have different laws for different races?
Sorry, /end possibly offtopic rant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570986</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the future.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262015340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Ikea had to pay taxes, it wouldn't be "Ikea's share" -- Ikea wouldn't pay a single red cent.  It's customers would.  So before you go spouting off that this or that "company" isn't paying its share, realize that you're saying that it's Ikea's potential customers, nearly 20\% of which are unemployed or underemployed (not to mention those on a fixed income), who would be paying the bill.   Besides, most states have a "use tax" which is intended to garner the equivalent of a sales tax for any item a resident purchases that they don't pay sales tax on -- so each and every purcahaser of material from Ikea and Amazon already has a mechanism to pay their how state -- their income tax.  The fact that most people don't pay that "use tax" (which is a barely legal convention to begin with) speaks volumes to the greed of the states.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Ikea had to pay taxes , it would n't be " Ikea 's share " -- Ikea would n't pay a single red cent .
It 's customers would .
So before you go spouting off that this or that " company " is n't paying its share , realize that you 're saying that it 's Ikea 's potential customers , nearly 20 \ % of which are unemployed or underemployed ( not to mention those on a fixed income ) , who would be paying the bill .
Besides , most states have a " use tax " which is intended to garner the equivalent of a sales tax for any item a resident purchases that they do n't pay sales tax on -- so each and every purcahaser of material from Ikea and Amazon already has a mechanism to pay their how state -- their income tax .
The fact that most people do n't pay that " use tax " ( which is a barely legal convention to begin with ) speaks volumes to the greed of the states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Ikea had to pay taxes, it wouldn't be "Ikea's share" -- Ikea wouldn't pay a single red cent.
It's customers would.
So before you go spouting off that this or that "company" isn't paying its share, realize that you're saying that it's Ikea's potential customers, nearly 20\% of which are unemployed or underemployed (not to mention those on a fixed income), who would be paying the bill.
Besides, most states have a "use tax" which is intended to garner the equivalent of a sales tax for any item a resident purchases that they don't pay sales tax on -- so each and every purcahaser of material from Ikea and Amazon already has a mechanism to pay their how state -- their income tax.
The fact that most people don't pay that "use tax" (which is a barely legal convention to begin with) speaks volumes to the greed of the states.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570412</id>
	<title>Re:Smaller companies?</title>
	<author>FrozenGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1262011620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait a minute.  Nebraska has a book?  Comic or colouring?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait a minute .
Nebraska has a book ?
Comic or colouring ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait a minute.
Nebraska has a book?
Comic or colouring?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571714</id>
	<title>Re:Once again, it's the government's fault</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1262019120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That simplicity in taxation would last about 12 minutes.  After which it will be so horribly convoluted that nobody will sell to New York over the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That simplicity in taxation would last about 12 minutes .
After which it will be so horribly convoluted that nobody will sell to New York over the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That simplicity in taxation would last about 12 minutes.
After which it will be so horribly convoluted that nobody will sell to New York over the web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574792</id>
	<title>Re:Once again, it's the government's fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262033520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That isn't a good idea. State government here in California has proven that. They regularly take money from every locale in the state, and rarely, if ever, does it get redistributed back to the localities in full. Lately, they have been trying to paper over their huge deficit by basically just stealing money from local cities and counties, which would destroy important emergency services. All of this so they can keep giving huge raises and pensions to public employee unions in the middle of a recession.</p><p>Money is best spent closest to where it is taxed, because people have the ability to walk into City Council meetings and scream when the money is wasted. The further away the money gets, the more likely it will end up in the pockets of a lobbyist and the special interest they represent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is n't a good idea .
State government here in California has proven that .
They regularly take money from every locale in the state , and rarely , if ever , does it get redistributed back to the localities in full .
Lately , they have been trying to paper over their huge deficit by basically just stealing money from local cities and counties , which would destroy important emergency services .
All of this so they can keep giving huge raises and pensions to public employee unions in the middle of a recession.Money is best spent closest to where it is taxed , because people have the ability to walk into City Council meetings and scream when the money is wasted .
The further away the money gets , the more likely it will end up in the pockets of a lobbyist and the special interest they represent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That isn't a good idea.
State government here in California has proven that.
They regularly take money from every locale in the state, and rarely, if ever, does it get redistributed back to the localities in full.
Lately, they have been trying to paper over their huge deficit by basically just stealing money from local cities and counties, which would destroy important emergency services.
All of this so they can keep giving huge raises and pensions to public employee unions in the middle of a recession.Money is best spent closest to where it is taxed, because people have the ability to walk into City Council meetings and scream when the money is wasted.
The further away the money gets, the more likely it will end up in the pockets of a lobbyist and the special interest they represent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576902</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it be wonderful,</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1262002020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Businesses don't pay taxes, the consumer does.</i> <br> <br>Yay, insightful.  Except it's meaningless.  The taxes are paid by the business.  They write the check, and they make the money that is taxed.  Even if they have no consumers in a year, they still are liable to the tax laws.  It's a cost of doing business.<br> <br>Think of it this way.  When a cop pulls you over and you yell "I pay your salary" belligerently at them, do they say "I'm sorry, you can go about your way"?  Since all expenses of a business are "paid by the consumer" do you think that saying the same to a CEO would get a response?  Then why do you think that the one check they write to the government is any different than the thousands of others they write to employees and suppliers and such?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Businesses do n't pay taxes , the consumer does .
Yay , insightful .
Except it 's meaningless .
The taxes are paid by the business .
They write the check , and they make the money that is taxed .
Even if they have no consumers in a year , they still are liable to the tax laws .
It 's a cost of doing business .
Think of it this way .
When a cop pulls you over and you yell " I pay your salary " belligerently at them , do they say " I 'm sorry , you can go about your way " ?
Since all expenses of a business are " paid by the consumer " do you think that saying the same to a CEO would get a response ?
Then why do you think that the one check they write to the government is any different than the thousands of others they write to employees and suppliers and such ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Businesses don't pay taxes, the consumer does.
Yay, insightful.
Except it's meaningless.
The taxes are paid by the business.
They write the check, and they make the money that is taxed.
Even if they have no consumers in a year, they still are liable to the tax laws.
It's a cost of doing business.
Think of it this way.
When a cop pulls you over and you yell "I pay your salary" belligerently at them, do they say "I'm sorry, you can go about your way"?
Since all expenses of a business are "paid by the consumer" do you think that saying the same to a CEO would get a response?
Then why do you think that the one check they write to the government is any different than the thousands of others they write to employees and suppliers and such?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570052</id>
	<title>I'm glad everybody's discussing the article...</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1262008800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad everybody's discussing the article... but I have another concern.</p><p>What the holy hell is a "horselaugh?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad everybody 's discussing the article... but I have another concern.What the holy hell is a " horselaugh ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad everybody's discussing the article... but I have another concern.What the holy hell is a "horselaugh?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30572714</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it be wonderful,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262023620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>and businesses just paid what they owed like the rest of us</p></div></blockquote><p>Funny you mention that.  Amazon doesn't pay sales tax, you and I do.  Amazon is the tax <em>collector</em> in this case.  Also, there is a line on your tax forms where you are supposed to enter in the amount of sales tax you owe but didn't pay.  But I bet you always put "0" for that line.  You don't pay the tax because it's difficult to keep track of and because you know that you won't get caught.</p><p>Assuming I'm correct and that you don't manually tally up the sales tax on <em>all</em> non-local purchases -- if you go on vacation in another state and buy some knickknacks, you are technically supposed to pay your local sales tax on them, even if the other state also charges a sales tax! -- then it would appear that businesses <em>do</em> pay what they owe just like the rest of us.  That is, when it's easier and cheaper to pay than it is not to, or when there's a high probability they would get caught cheating.</p><p>Of course, I'm being a little glib here, and I admit that.  I do recognize that companies... well, perhaps it's not cheating, exactly, but they certainly do engage in some practices which clearly are not in the spirit of the law.  They get away with it because they have armies of tax lawyers to defend them against the IRS.  That's an advantage that big companies have which you and I don't: the government is still bigger and badder than they are, but not nearly so much as for us individual private citizens.  And I think it's the difference: I firmly believe that someone making $40k a year would engage in exactly the same sort of loophole-finding, rule-bending behavior when it comes to taxes if he had the opportunity to do so.  So I don't think we can exactly claim the moral high ground here.  IBM et al. are just acting the way you or I would if we had their resources available to us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and businesses just paid what they owed like the rest of usFunny you mention that .
Amazon does n't pay sales tax , you and I do .
Amazon is the tax collector in this case .
Also , there is a line on your tax forms where you are supposed to enter in the amount of sales tax you owe but did n't pay .
But I bet you always put " 0 " for that line .
You do n't pay the tax because it 's difficult to keep track of and because you know that you wo n't get caught.Assuming I 'm correct and that you do n't manually tally up the sales tax on all non-local purchases -- if you go on vacation in another state and buy some knickknacks , you are technically supposed to pay your local sales tax on them , even if the other state also charges a sales tax !
-- then it would appear that businesses do pay what they owe just like the rest of us .
That is , when it 's easier and cheaper to pay than it is not to , or when there 's a high probability they would get caught cheating.Of course , I 'm being a little glib here , and I admit that .
I do recognize that companies... well , perhaps it 's not cheating , exactly , but they certainly do engage in some practices which clearly are not in the spirit of the law .
They get away with it because they have armies of tax lawyers to defend them against the IRS .
That 's an advantage that big companies have which you and I do n't : the government is still bigger and badder than they are , but not nearly so much as for us individual private citizens .
And I think it 's the difference : I firmly believe that someone making $ 40k a year would engage in exactly the same sort of loophole-finding , rule-bending behavior when it comes to taxes if he had the opportunity to do so .
So I do n't think we can exactly claim the moral high ground here .
IBM et al .
are just acting the way you or I would if we had their resources available to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and businesses just paid what they owed like the rest of usFunny you mention that.
Amazon doesn't pay sales tax, you and I do.
Amazon is the tax collector in this case.
Also, there is a line on your tax forms where you are supposed to enter in the amount of sales tax you owe but didn't pay.
But I bet you always put "0" for that line.
You don't pay the tax because it's difficult to keep track of and because you know that you won't get caught.Assuming I'm correct and that you don't manually tally up the sales tax on all non-local purchases -- if you go on vacation in another state and buy some knickknacks, you are technically supposed to pay your local sales tax on them, even if the other state also charges a sales tax!
-- then it would appear that businesses do pay what they owe just like the rest of us.
That is, when it's easier and cheaper to pay than it is not to, or when there's a high probability they would get caught cheating.Of course, I'm being a little glib here, and I admit that.
I do recognize that companies... well, perhaps it's not cheating, exactly, but they certainly do engage in some practices which clearly are not in the spirit of the law.
They get away with it because they have armies of tax lawyers to defend them against the IRS.
That's an advantage that big companies have which you and I don't: the government is still bigger and badder than they are, but not nearly so much as for us individual private citizens.
And I think it's the difference: I firmly believe that someone making $40k a year would engage in exactly the same sort of loophole-finding, rule-bending behavior when it comes to taxes if he had the opportunity to do so.
So I don't think we can exactly claim the moral high ground here.
IBM et al.
are just acting the way you or I would if we had their resources available to us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570538</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1262012580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another alternative is for a federal law that simply requires each of the states to submit ONE tax rate for the whole state, and accept a set of exemptions designated by that federal law, to be part of the inter-state tax program.</p></div><p>That's an interesting idea.  What about an opt-in online tax system?  We are talking about electronic transactions here, after all.  The federal law could be something along the lines of:</p><p>1) A common standard for taxable transactions is created to cover types of items purchased, address format, amounts, etc.  EDI for sales tax.</p><p>2) States will be provided a set of guidelines for establishing a series of servers to accept these transactions that will be uniform.  E.g. <a href="http://salestax.state.gov/zipcode" title="state.gov">http://salestax.state.gov/zipcode</a> [state.gov].</p><p>3) The server will provide the appropriate tax rate via the established format to any retailer that requests it, electronically.</p><p>4) The server will then also be ready to accept EFT from that same source.</p><p>5) Any municipalities that are missing taxes can lobby their state government for inclusion in the system.</p><p>6) Any retailer that can prove that the given state was not compliant with the transaction ruleset is exempt from paying taxes for that transaction.  (Format should specify how the records are kept, who has audit power, etc.)</p><p>It feels like I'm overlooking something here...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another alternative is for a federal law that simply requires each of the states to submit ONE tax rate for the whole state , and accept a set of exemptions designated by that federal law , to be part of the inter-state tax program.That 's an interesting idea .
What about an opt-in online tax system ?
We are talking about electronic transactions here , after all .
The federal law could be something along the lines of : 1 ) A common standard for taxable transactions is created to cover types of items purchased , address format , amounts , etc .
EDI for sales tax.2 ) States will be provided a set of guidelines for establishing a series of servers to accept these transactions that will be uniform .
E.g. http : //salestax.state.gov/zipcode [ state.gov ] .3 ) The server will provide the appropriate tax rate via the established format to any retailer that requests it , electronically.4 ) The server will then also be ready to accept EFT from that same source.5 ) Any municipalities that are missing taxes can lobby their state government for inclusion in the system.6 ) Any retailer that can prove that the given state was not compliant with the transaction ruleset is exempt from paying taxes for that transaction .
( Format should specify how the records are kept , who has audit power , etc .
) It feels like I 'm overlooking something here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another alternative is for a federal law that simply requires each of the states to submit ONE tax rate for the whole state, and accept a set of exemptions designated by that federal law, to be part of the inter-state tax program.That's an interesting idea.
What about an opt-in online tax system?
We are talking about electronic transactions here, after all.
The federal law could be something along the lines of:1) A common standard for taxable transactions is created to cover types of items purchased, address format, amounts, etc.
EDI for sales tax.2) States will be provided a set of guidelines for establishing a series of servers to accept these transactions that will be uniform.
E.g. http://salestax.state.gov/zipcode [state.gov].3) The server will provide the appropriate tax rate via the established format to any retailer that requests it, electronically.4) The server will then also be ready to accept EFT from that same source.5) Any municipalities that are missing taxes can lobby their state government for inclusion in the system.6) Any retailer that can prove that the given state was not compliant with the transaction ruleset is exempt from paying taxes for that transaction.
(Format should specify how the records are kept, who has audit power, etc.
)It feels like I'm overlooking something here...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570660</id>
	<title>It's Not Tax Evasion</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1262013480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As with catalog sales in the days before the Internet, Amazon.com is not required to collect taxes in any jurisdiction where it doesn't have a business presence. There's no trickery involved. Amazon doesn't collect any taxes it isn't required by law to collect, just like you don't pay taxes in states that you've never set foot in.</p><p>Since only the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, the ability of State X to force Amazon.com to collect its taxes when it doesn't have a presence in that state would require federal legislation to that effect. Also, for any such federal law to work it seems to me that tax rules and rates would have to be simplified across all 50 states. There's an effort to do so called the <i>Streamlined Sales Tax Project</i>, but despite its name it strikes me as ridiculously overcomplicated (as in "you need a certified computer program to handle the differences between each state's rules") due to the desire to please all the participating states.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As with catalog sales in the days before the Internet , Amazon.com is not required to collect taxes in any jurisdiction where it does n't have a business presence .
There 's no trickery involved .
Amazon does n't collect any taxes it is n't required by law to collect , just like you do n't pay taxes in states that you 've never set foot in.Since only the federal government can regulate interstate commerce , the ability of State X to force Amazon.com to collect its taxes when it does n't have a presence in that state would require federal legislation to that effect .
Also , for any such federal law to work it seems to me that tax rules and rates would have to be simplified across all 50 states .
There 's an effort to do so called the Streamlined Sales Tax Project , but despite its name it strikes me as ridiculously overcomplicated ( as in " you need a certified computer program to handle the differences between each state 's rules " ) due to the desire to please all the participating states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As with catalog sales in the days before the Internet, Amazon.com is not required to collect taxes in any jurisdiction where it doesn't have a business presence.
There's no trickery involved.
Amazon doesn't collect any taxes it isn't required by law to collect, just like you don't pay taxes in states that you've never set foot in.Since only the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, the ability of State X to force Amazon.com to collect its taxes when it doesn't have a presence in that state would require federal legislation to that effect.
Also, for any such federal law to work it seems to me that tax rules and rates would have to be simplified across all 50 states.
There's an effort to do so called the Streamlined Sales Tax Project, but despite its name it strikes me as ridiculously overcomplicated (as in "you need a certified computer program to handle the differences between each state's rules") due to the desire to please all the participating states.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571868</id>
	<title>Re:Once again, it's the government's fault</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1262019900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Online retailers in Washington only charge the minimum Washington tax rate (6.5\%) instead of calculating the actual rate based on your address. (For example, I'd normally pay 8.2\% tax if I bought the same item at a brick-and-mortar store, but online I pay 6.5\%.)</p><p>It still means that online business has an advantage, but it's not nearly so burdensome. If all other 49 states agreed to a similar method of simply calculating a tax-proxy, that would be ideal. But there's no way that would happen realistically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Online retailers in Washington only charge the minimum Washington tax rate ( 6.5 \ % ) instead of calculating the actual rate based on your address .
( For example , I 'd normally pay 8.2 \ % tax if I bought the same item at a brick-and-mortar store , but online I pay 6.5 \ % .
) It still means that online business has an advantage , but it 's not nearly so burdensome .
If all other 49 states agreed to a similar method of simply calculating a tax-proxy , that would be ideal .
But there 's no way that would happen realistically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Online retailers in Washington only charge the minimum Washington tax rate (6.5\%) instead of calculating the actual rate based on your address.
(For example, I'd normally pay 8.2\% tax if I bought the same item at a brick-and-mortar store, but online I pay 6.5\%.
)It still means that online business has an advantage, but it's not nearly so burdensome.
If all other 49 states agreed to a similar method of simply calculating a tax-proxy, that would be ideal.
But there's no way that would happen realistically.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571524</id>
	<title>Re:Note the lack of mentioning all the other taxes</title>
	<author>iamhassi</author>
	<datestamp>1262018220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>" I also think it's cute that they feel amazon has a moral right to pay more taxes in this 'time of hardship'."</i>
<br> <br>
I think it's cute that the NY Times forgets Amazon is online, they don't rely on local people, and could just as easily move overseas as it could to another state to save that billion dollars in taxes.  <a href="http://askville.amazon.com/employees-amazon/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=5927635" title="amazon.com">I'm sure there's plenty of states that would welcome Amazon and the 15,000+ jobs it brings</a> [amazon.com] with tax-exempt status.
<br> <br>
Please California, chase away all of your big businesses!  Midwestern states would welcome the jobs.
<br> <br>
If online taxes were required I'd just purchase more from eBay and chinese vendors.  Is that what California wants?  People are going to buy wherever it's cheaper, whether it's down the street, online or overseas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I also think it 's cute that they feel amazon has a moral right to pay more taxes in this 'time of hardship' .
" I think it 's cute that the NY Times forgets Amazon is online , they do n't rely on local people , and could just as easily move overseas as it could to another state to save that billion dollars in taxes .
I 'm sure there 's plenty of states that would welcome Amazon and the 15,000 + jobs it brings [ amazon.com ] with tax-exempt status .
Please California , chase away all of your big businesses !
Midwestern states would welcome the jobs .
If online taxes were required I 'd just purchase more from eBay and chinese vendors .
Is that what California wants ?
People are going to buy wherever it 's cheaper , whether it 's down the street , online or overseas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" I also think it's cute that they feel amazon has a moral right to pay more taxes in this 'time of hardship'.
"
 
I think it's cute that the NY Times forgets Amazon is online, they don't rely on local people, and could just as easily move overseas as it could to another state to save that billion dollars in taxes.
I'm sure there's plenty of states that would welcome Amazon and the 15,000+ jobs it brings [amazon.com] with tax-exempt status.
Please California, chase away all of your big businesses!
Midwestern states would welcome the jobs.
If online taxes were required I'd just purchase more from eBay and chinese vendors.
Is that what California wants?
People are going to buy wherever it's cheaper, whether it's down the street, online or overseas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571786</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262019480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I suggest that instead of the stores charging the tax, the credit/debit card processor charge the tax. The advantage of this is that they readily know the billing address of the account holder.</i></p><p>Great!</p><p>I'm going to go change my debit card address to somewhere in Delaware, so that I never get charged sales tax even when I'm buying in New York (where I actually live).</p><p>Actually, I do this already for game/music downloads.  Works great.</p><p>Also, your proposal would never be supported by states that already have 0\% sales tax, because they rely on out-of-state shoppers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest that instead of the stores charging the tax , the credit/debit card processor charge the tax .
The advantage of this is that they readily know the billing address of the account holder.Great ! I 'm going to go change my debit card address to somewhere in Delaware , so that I never get charged sales tax even when I 'm buying in New York ( where I actually live ) .Actually , I do this already for game/music downloads .
Works great.Also , your proposal would never be supported by states that already have 0 \ % sales tax , because they rely on out-of-state shoppers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest that instead of the stores charging the tax, the credit/debit card processor charge the tax.
The advantage of this is that they readily know the billing address of the account holder.Great!I'm going to go change my debit card address to somewhere in Delaware, so that I never get charged sales tax even when I'm buying in New York (where I actually live).Actually, I do this already for game/music downloads.
Works great.Also, your proposal would never be supported by states that already have 0\% sales tax, because they rely on out-of-state shoppers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570514</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon == Borg</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1262012340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You really think that just because a business out-competes and sinks other businesses that it deserves to be hurt? Do you think that anyone who sells anything online should have to deal with the thousands of different sales tax rates in the United States? You do realize that this will only make Amazon that much more monolithic by presenting a barrier for up and coming e-tailers that could compete with them, right? Our nation was founded on capitalism, which is based on fair competition. Amazon has been playing fair (at least in this regard) and has demolished the competition by being the best, and now we want to punish them for it. This is an extremely stupid reaction and is consequently one of the main reasons our country is becoming such a turd -- we punish greatness and reward mediocrity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You really think that just because a business out-competes and sinks other businesses that it deserves to be hurt ?
Do you think that anyone who sells anything online should have to deal with the thousands of different sales tax rates in the United States ?
You do realize that this will only make Amazon that much more monolithic by presenting a barrier for up and coming e-tailers that could compete with them , right ?
Our nation was founded on capitalism , which is based on fair competition .
Amazon has been playing fair ( at least in this regard ) and has demolished the competition by being the best , and now we want to punish them for it .
This is an extremely stupid reaction and is consequently one of the main reasons our country is becoming such a turd -- we punish greatness and reward mediocrity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really think that just because a business out-competes and sinks other businesses that it deserves to be hurt?
Do you think that anyone who sells anything online should have to deal with the thousands of different sales tax rates in the United States?
You do realize that this will only make Amazon that much more monolithic by presenting a barrier for up and coming e-tailers that could compete with them, right?
Our nation was founded on capitalism, which is based on fair competition.
Amazon has been playing fair (at least in this regard) and has demolished the competition by being the best, and now we want to punish them for it.
This is an extremely stupid reaction and is consequently one of the main reasons our country is becoming such a turd -- we punish greatness and reward mediocrity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576760</id>
	<title>Re:Smaller companies?</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1262001000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Someone buys something for a couple bucks and suddenly you have to send payments of a few cents to three different places.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Yep, and there are practical issues that make it hard to work around this. E.g., one way to handle this would be to have a uniform internet-based system for making the necessary micropayments automatically. This would effectively mandate that every small business have a computer and a working internet connection, which would be unreasonable. You could get around that by making small businesses exempt, but (a) big businesses would complain about unfair competition, (b) you'd have to get every state to agree to such a system. The real killer is b. No way are all the states going to agree on such a thing.
</p><p>
Another way to handle it would be to set a standard federal sales tax of, say, 5\%, and make it the only sales tax that could legally be applied to interstate transactions. This is close enough to the average state use/sales tax rate that it would eliminate most of the incentive to buy from out of state in order to avoid tax. But again, this isn't going to happen because the states would see it as a huge power grab by the federal government, and low-tax conservatives would see it as a de facto tax increase (even though it would really have a net effect more akin to simply enforcing the existing use tax laws).
</p><p>
Another solution: get every state to eliminate sales tax and raise other taxes to compensate. Problem: states like California are already in horrible budgetary straits because they depend too much on one type of tax, which fluctuates a lot.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone buys something for a couple bucks and suddenly you have to send payments of a few cents to three different places .
Yep , and there are practical issues that make it hard to work around this .
E.g. , one way to handle this would be to have a uniform internet-based system for making the necessary micropayments automatically .
This would effectively mandate that every small business have a computer and a working internet connection , which would be unreasonable .
You could get around that by making small businesses exempt , but ( a ) big businesses would complain about unfair competition , ( b ) you 'd have to get every state to agree to such a system .
The real killer is b. No way are all the states going to agree on such a thing .
Another way to handle it would be to set a standard federal sales tax of , say , 5 \ % , and make it the only sales tax that could legally be applied to interstate transactions .
This is close enough to the average state use/sales tax rate that it would eliminate most of the incentive to buy from out of state in order to avoid tax .
But again , this is n't going to happen because the states would see it as a huge power grab by the federal government , and low-tax conservatives would see it as a de facto tax increase ( even though it would really have a net effect more akin to simply enforcing the existing use tax laws ) .
Another solution : get every state to eliminate sales tax and raise other taxes to compensate .
Problem : states like California are already in horrible budgetary straits because they depend too much on one type of tax , which fluctuates a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone buys something for a couple bucks and suddenly you have to send payments of a few cents to three different places.
Yep, and there are practical issues that make it hard to work around this.
E.g., one way to handle this would be to have a uniform internet-based system for making the necessary micropayments automatically.
This would effectively mandate that every small business have a computer and a working internet connection, which would be unreasonable.
You could get around that by making small businesses exempt, but (a) big businesses would complain about unfair competition, (b) you'd have to get every state to agree to such a system.
The real killer is b. No way are all the states going to agree on such a thing.
Another way to handle it would be to set a standard federal sales tax of, say, 5\%, and make it the only sales tax that could legally be applied to interstate transactions.
This is close enough to the average state use/sales tax rate that it would eliminate most of the incentive to buy from out of state in order to avoid tax.
But again, this isn't going to happen because the states would see it as a huge power grab by the federal government, and low-tax conservatives would see it as a de facto tax increase (even though it would really have a net effect more akin to simply enforcing the existing use tax laws).
Another solution: get every state to eliminate sales tax and raise other taxes to compensate.
Problem: states like California are already in horrible budgetary straits because they depend too much on one type of tax, which fluctuates a lot.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570192</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it be wonderful,</title>
	<author>night\_flyer</author>
	<datestamp>1262010180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"businesses just paid what they owed like the rest of us"</p><p>Businesses don't pay taxes, the consumer does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" businesses just paid what they owed like the rest of us " Businesses do n't pay taxes , the consumer does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"businesses just paid what they owed like the rest of us"Businesses don't pay taxes, the consumer does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571980</id>
	<title>Re:Smaller companies?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262020380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon would have to write a few thousand cheques?  Say it isn't so!</p><p>Strange how Wal-Mart and your other national chains manage to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon would have to write a few thousand cheques ?
Say it is n't so ! Strange how Wal-Mart and your other national chains manage to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon would have to write a few thousand cheques?
Say it isn't so!Strange how Wal-Mart and your other national chains manage to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30579238</id>
	<title>Re:The press is self-interested on this topic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262022540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also note that, in most places, sales tax is not charged on the NY Times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also note that , in most places , sales tax is not charged on the NY Times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also note that, in most places, sales tax is not charged on the NY Times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573392</id>
	<title>Re:Note the lack of mentioning all the other taxes</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1262026500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Amazon moves overseas, everything they ship into the US is subject to import duties.  Import duties are generally much higher than sales taxes.</p><p>Also: Amazon is not in California.  It is in Washington.  This might clue you in to why the LA times is pushing for this.  California is getting zero tax revenue from Amazon at the moment.  People pushing for this would require sales tax to be charged <b>regardless of where they ship from</b> be it Washington, Michigan or Shanghai.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Amazon moves overseas , everything they ship into the US is subject to import duties .
Import duties are generally much higher than sales taxes.Also : Amazon is not in California .
It is in Washington .
This might clue you in to why the LA times is pushing for this .
California is getting zero tax revenue from Amazon at the moment .
People pushing for this would require sales tax to be charged regardless of where they ship from be it Washington , Michigan or Shanghai .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Amazon moves overseas, everything they ship into the US is subject to import duties.
Import duties are generally much higher than sales taxes.Also: Amazon is not in California.
It is in Washington.
This might clue you in to why the LA times is pushing for this.
California is getting zero tax revenue from Amazon at the moment.
People pushing for this would require sales tax to be charged regardless of where they ship from be it Washington, Michigan or Shanghai.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569984</id>
	<title>Re:Only amazon?</title>
	<author>Neuroelectronic</author>
	<datestamp>1262007900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This makes me wonder why they're targeting Amazon specifically.  Perhaps a simple conspiracy between the liberal papers to short AMZN's record high stock?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This makes me wonder why they 're targeting Amazon specifically .
Perhaps a simple conspiracy between the liberal papers to short AMZN 's record high stock ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This makes me wonder why they're targeting Amazon specifically.
Perhaps a simple conspiracy between the liberal papers to short AMZN's record high stock?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570262</id>
	<title>Re:Smaller companies?</title>
	<author>ZorbaTHut</author>
	<datestamp>1262010600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My mom has been trying to start a new museum lately. One of the big projects is to set up Internet-based donations. Naturally, every state has its own laws on how donations to non-profits work. Non-profits have to be registered separately in every state (technically there is a "standard form", but the states who take it all require extra documentation as well) and tax reporting is just a gargantuan enormous burden. Too complicated for any small non-profit to ever manage.</p><p>As a result, there are companies that specialize in doing this for you. They take a small slice of the donations (something like 2\%) and in exchange they manage <i>all</i> of the annoying reporting and legal issues involved.</p><p>It turns out that they're good at it. So good, in fact, that the Red Cross uses them because they find it cheaper and more reliable.</p><p>I see no reason whatsoever that a similar business couldn't form for internet sales tax. And, in fact, I find it almost inevitable that such a business <i>will</i> form once it becomes an issue. So, as for how much it will cost, and how difficult it will be to manage: well, about 2\% of your revenue, if the non-profit area is any indication.</p><p>Plus the taxes that you now have to pay, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My mom has been trying to start a new museum lately .
One of the big projects is to set up Internet-based donations .
Naturally , every state has its own laws on how donations to non-profits work .
Non-profits have to be registered separately in every state ( technically there is a " standard form " , but the states who take it all require extra documentation as well ) and tax reporting is just a gargantuan enormous burden .
Too complicated for any small non-profit to ever manage.As a result , there are companies that specialize in doing this for you .
They take a small slice of the donations ( something like 2 \ % ) and in exchange they manage all of the annoying reporting and legal issues involved.It turns out that they 're good at it .
So good , in fact , that the Red Cross uses them because they find it cheaper and more reliable.I see no reason whatsoever that a similar business could n't form for internet sales tax .
And , in fact , I find it almost inevitable that such a business will form once it becomes an issue .
So , as for how much it will cost , and how difficult it will be to manage : well , about 2 \ % of your revenue , if the non-profit area is any indication.Plus the taxes that you now have to pay , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My mom has been trying to start a new museum lately.
One of the big projects is to set up Internet-based donations.
Naturally, every state has its own laws on how donations to non-profits work.
Non-profits have to be registered separately in every state (technically there is a "standard form", but the states who take it all require extra documentation as well) and tax reporting is just a gargantuan enormous burden.
Too complicated for any small non-profit to ever manage.As a result, there are companies that specialize in doing this for you.
They take a small slice of the donations (something like 2\%) and in exchange they manage all of the annoying reporting and legal issues involved.It turns out that they're good at it.
So good, in fact, that the Red Cross uses them because they find it cheaper and more reliable.I see no reason whatsoever that a similar business couldn't form for internet sales tax.
And, in fact, I find it almost inevitable that such a business will form once it becomes an issue.
So, as for how much it will cost, and how difficult it will be to manage: well, about 2\% of your revenue, if the non-profit area is any indication.Plus the taxes that you now have to pay, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573314</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262026140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are already software packages out there that do this quite nicely.</p><p>Lookup Comverse for an example in telco.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are already software packages out there that do this quite nicely.Lookup Comverse for an example in telco .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are already software packages out there that do this quite nicely.Lookup Comverse for an example in telco.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571442</id>
	<title>Re:The dangers of stupid taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262017740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any sales taxes on an Amazon purchase are paid by the consumer. Amazon simply collects them.</p><p>The retail sales tax is a consumption tax levied on a states' residents. This is why the sales tax would be based on the destination state -- the people paying the tax are the people benefiting from the services of the government they're paying tax to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any sales taxes on an Amazon purchase are paid by the consumer .
Amazon simply collects them.The retail sales tax is a consumption tax levied on a states ' residents .
This is why the sales tax would be based on the destination state -- the people paying the tax are the people benefiting from the services of the government they 're paying tax to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any sales taxes on an Amazon purchase are paid by the consumer.
Amazon simply collects them.The retail sales tax is a consumption tax levied on a states' residents.
This is why the sales tax would be based on the destination state -- the people paying the tax are the people benefiting from the services of the government they're paying tax to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569680</id>
	<title>Only amazon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262003340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because only amazon avoids taxes with legal loopholes.....</p><p>Nice to know a health care bill goes in with a "tax" per person, but we still cant get microsoft, blackwater, goldmansachs, to their fair share of taxes...</p><p>Guess amazon needs more lobbyists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because only amazon avoids taxes with legal loopholes.....Nice to know a health care bill goes in with a " tax " per person , but we still cant get microsoft , blackwater , goldmansachs , to their fair share of taxes...Guess amazon needs more lobbyists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because only amazon avoids taxes with legal loopholes.....Nice to know a health care bill goes in with a "tax" per person, but we still cant get microsoft, blackwater, goldmansachs, to their fair share of taxes...Guess amazon needs more lobbyists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569896</id>
	<title>Re:Only amazon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262006760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, the theory behind leaving corporations and the rich alone is that doing so will result in greater investment and more jobs.  A trickle down, if you will.</p><p>Ok, so it's a goofy concept.</p><p>But it did sound like sound policy to a lot of people back when Reagan was president.  The famous words that accompanied this new economic approach were "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem!"  Long live unfettered free-market capitalism.</p><p>Small wonder that belief in government was supplanted by corporatism.  I'd like to say we've finally come full circle, but I'm left wondering how many people, rejecting both, having nothing to believe in at all.  Cynicism as a belief system is boring stuff, even for the cynics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , the theory behind leaving corporations and the rich alone is that doing so will result in greater investment and more jobs .
A trickle down , if you will.Ok , so it 's a goofy concept.But it did sound like sound policy to a lot of people back when Reagan was president .
The famous words that accompanied this new economic approach were " Government is not the solution to our problem .
Government is the problem !
" Long live unfettered free-market capitalism.Small wonder that belief in government was supplanted by corporatism .
I 'd like to say we 've finally come full circle , but I 'm left wondering how many people , rejecting both , having nothing to believe in at all .
Cynicism as a belief system is boring stuff , even for the cynics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, the theory behind leaving corporations and the rich alone is that doing so will result in greater investment and more jobs.
A trickle down, if you will.Ok, so it's a goofy concept.But it did sound like sound policy to a lot of people back when Reagan was president.
The famous words that accompanied this new economic approach were "Government is not the solution to our problem.
Government is the problem!
"  Long live unfettered free-market capitalism.Small wonder that belief in government was supplanted by corporatism.
I'd like to say we've finally come full circle, but I'm left wondering how many people, rejecting both, having nothing to believe in at all.
Cynicism as a belief system is boring stuff, even for the cynics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576468</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261998960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The  mailing address is the address of the post office that delivers the mail, not the civil location of the building. A small northern California city has its post office in Oregon, so the California residents have an Oregon address on their California driver's license.</p><p>And what about post office boxes? Real USPS ones or FEDEX ones?</p><p>I recently returned from Disney World in Florida. The sales tax varies depending on which store you happen to be in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mailing address is the address of the post office that delivers the mail , not the civil location of the building .
A small northern California city has its post office in Oregon , so the California residents have an Oregon address on their California driver 's license.And what about post office boxes ?
Real USPS ones or FEDEX ones ? I recently returned from Disney World in Florida .
The sales tax varies depending on which store you happen to be in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The  mailing address is the address of the post office that delivers the mail, not the civil location of the building.
A small northern California city has its post office in Oregon, so the California residents have an Oregon address on their California driver's license.And what about post office boxes?
Real USPS ones or FEDEX ones?I recently returned from Disney World in Florida.
The sales tax varies depending on which store you happen to be in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570082</id>
	<title>Welcome to the future.</title>
	<author>jonpublic</author>
	<datestamp>1262009100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where every single tiny loop hole in the law is exploited to the fullest by the large cooperations and everyone else has to obey the spirit of the law because they can't setup the giant shell game that is required to avoid paying taxes. How many fully owned separate legal entities comprise Amazon? It's all one giant cooperation for all intents but they break it up into a ton of little pieces to get around the spirit of the law. Leaving everyone else to have to make up for Amazon skips out on paying. It's not a level playing field.</p><p>It reminds me of the ownership structure of Ikea, which is extremely complex, but ultimately results in almost no taxes. Which is great for Ikea, but horrible for everyone else who has to pick up Ikea's share.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Look it up under corporate structure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where every single tiny loop hole in the law is exploited to the fullest by the large cooperations and everyone else has to obey the spirit of the law because they ca n't setup the giant shell game that is required to avoid paying taxes .
How many fully owned separate legal entities comprise Amazon ?
It 's all one giant cooperation for all intents but they break it up into a ton of little pieces to get around the spirit of the law .
Leaving everyone else to have to make up for Amazon skips out on paying .
It 's not a level playing field.It reminds me of the ownership structure of Ikea , which is extremely complex , but ultimately results in almost no taxes .
Which is great for Ikea , but horrible for everyone else who has to pick up Ikea 's share.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA [ wikipedia.org ] Look it up under corporate structure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where every single tiny loop hole in the law is exploited to the fullest by the large cooperations and everyone else has to obey the spirit of the law because they can't setup the giant shell game that is required to avoid paying taxes.
How many fully owned separate legal entities comprise Amazon?
It's all one giant cooperation for all intents but they break it up into a ton of little pieces to get around the spirit of the law.
Leaving everyone else to have to make up for Amazon skips out on paying.
It's not a level playing field.It reminds me of the ownership structure of Ikea, which is extremely complex, but ultimately results in almost no taxes.
Which is great for Ikea, but horrible for everyone else who has to pick up Ikea's share.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA [wikipedia.org]Look it up under corporate structure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30575474</id>
	<title>Re:Note the lack of mentioning all the other taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261993800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many large businesses use Vertex brand tax calculation software that is integrated with their billing application. Works pretty good - not perfect, but good. You need a maintenance agreement and to apply frequent upgrades to keep up with the constant changes in local, state and federal tax laws. There are undoubtedly others that I am not familiar with, but an automated tax calculation solution is already available and has been in use for many years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many large businesses use Vertex brand tax calculation software that is integrated with their billing application .
Works pretty good - not perfect , but good .
You need a maintenance agreement and to apply frequent upgrades to keep up with the constant changes in local , state and federal tax laws .
There are undoubtedly others that I am not familiar with , but an automated tax calculation solution is already available and has been in use for many years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many large businesses use Vertex brand tax calculation software that is integrated with their billing application.
Works pretty good - not perfect, but good.
You need a maintenance agreement and to apply frequent upgrades to keep up with the constant changes in local, state and federal tax laws.
There are undoubtedly others that I am not familiar with, but an automated tax calculation solution is already available and has been in use for many years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570616</id>
	<title>Re:Note the lack of mentioning all the other taxes</title>
	<author>cptnapalm</author>
	<datestamp>1262013120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My "local merchants" are out of state businesses that send their profits elsewhere.  Why should I care?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My " local merchants " are out of state businesses that send their profits elsewhere .
Why should I care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My "local merchants" are out of state businesses that send their profits elsewhere.
Why should I care?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30572632</id>
	<title>Re:Note the lack of mentioning all the other taxes</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1262023320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Going overseas would not change anything in retrieving local taxes. If I buy something in the US, I still have to pay taxes in Belgium. Wether I do that or not is another issue.</p><p>From my point of view the point of sale is at the customers home so all taxes should be done there. If the company is unable to do that, he should not be doing business there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Going overseas would not change anything in retrieving local taxes .
If I buy something in the US , I still have to pay taxes in Belgium .
Wether I do that or not is another issue.From my point of view the point of sale is at the customers home so all taxes should be done there .
If the company is unable to do that , he should not be doing business there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Going overseas would not change anything in retrieving local taxes.
If I buy something in the US, I still have to pay taxes in Belgium.
Wether I do that or not is another issue.From my point of view the point of sale is at the customers home so all taxes should be done there.
If the company is unable to do that, he should not be doing business there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570270</id>
	<title>I got your tax right here you greedy Jews</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262010600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now with my dick in your mouth, you will get the only tax you deserve you greedy paper worshiping cum guzzling kikes.</p><p>While you are at it, you can hoard my nuts in your mouth too. Go ahead and push me to make all my purchases from an online store in ANOTHER COUNTRY so your pissant failing Empire has more of your precious unbacked money flowing out and damn near none flowing in with Imperial businesses either leaving or failing in droves. Lost jobs and more bankruptcies leading to a guaranteed double great depression, but what do you leech Jews care so long as you got your gold and paper to worship?</p><p>Stupid greedy Jews, always fucking everything up. Why oh why wasn't the holocaust real? Why oh fucking why can't there be a real one but eliminate every single Jewish parasite off of humanity's back forever so we are no longer crippled and held back by paper worshiping greedy hoarding parasites???</p><p>Jews: Cancer of progress and plague of humanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now with my dick in your mouth , you will get the only tax you deserve you greedy paper worshiping cum guzzling kikes.While you are at it , you can hoard my nuts in your mouth too .
Go ahead and push me to make all my purchases from an online store in ANOTHER COUNTRY so your pissant failing Empire has more of your precious unbacked money flowing out and damn near none flowing in with Imperial businesses either leaving or failing in droves .
Lost jobs and more bankruptcies leading to a guaranteed double great depression , but what do you leech Jews care so long as you got your gold and paper to worship ? Stupid greedy Jews , always fucking everything up .
Why oh why was n't the holocaust real ?
Why oh fucking why ca n't there be a real one but eliminate every single Jewish parasite off of humanity 's back forever so we are no longer crippled and held back by paper worshiping greedy hoarding parasites ? ?
? Jews : Cancer of progress and plague of humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now with my dick in your mouth, you will get the only tax you deserve you greedy paper worshiping cum guzzling kikes.While you are at it, you can hoard my nuts in your mouth too.
Go ahead and push me to make all my purchases from an online store in ANOTHER COUNTRY so your pissant failing Empire has more of your precious unbacked money flowing out and damn near none flowing in with Imperial businesses either leaving or failing in droves.
Lost jobs and more bankruptcies leading to a guaranteed double great depression, but what do you leech Jews care so long as you got your gold and paper to worship?Stupid greedy Jews, always fucking everything up.
Why oh why wasn't the holocaust real?
Why oh fucking why can't there be a real one but eliminate every single Jewish parasite off of humanity's back forever so we are no longer crippled and held back by paper worshiping greedy hoarding parasites??
?Jews: Cancer of progress and plague of humanity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570652</id>
	<title>How about a new 1099?</title>
	<author>Clovis42</author>
	<datestamp>1262013360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As several commenters have mentioned above, collecting and submitting taxes for all the various state, city, and local taxes would be a huge burden on small business. It is also unnecessary since most states already have a "use tax". Of course, no one actually pays the use tax. Why? Because the state has no idea how much stuff you have bought on-line, so why would you pay it?
</p><p>
So then, the solution is easy. Why not create a new Federal 1099-E form. A business dealing with another state does not have to collect any tax. At the end of the year they issue a Form 1099-E to each applicable state and to their customers. The customers now know the state knows how much they've bought so they will be compelled to pay the use tax. It will also be easy to do since they just have to add up all their 1099-Es. It shouldn't be difficult for a business to keep track of the total spending for a customer and issue a couple automated forms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As several commenters have mentioned above , collecting and submitting taxes for all the various state , city , and local taxes would be a huge burden on small business .
It is also unnecessary since most states already have a " use tax " .
Of course , no one actually pays the use tax .
Why ? Because the state has no idea how much stuff you have bought on-line , so why would you pay it ?
So then , the solution is easy .
Why not create a new Federal 1099-E form .
A business dealing with another state does not have to collect any tax .
At the end of the year they issue a Form 1099-E to each applicable state and to their customers .
The customers now know the state knows how much they 've bought so they will be compelled to pay the use tax .
It will also be easy to do since they just have to add up all their 1099-Es .
It should n't be difficult for a business to keep track of the total spending for a customer and issue a couple automated forms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As several commenters have mentioned above, collecting and submitting taxes for all the various state, city, and local taxes would be a huge burden on small business.
It is also unnecessary since most states already have a "use tax".
Of course, no one actually pays the use tax.
Why? Because the state has no idea how much stuff you have bought on-line, so why would you pay it?
So then, the solution is easy.
Why not create a new Federal 1099-E form.
A business dealing with another state does not have to collect any tax.
At the end of the year they issue a Form 1099-E to each applicable state and to their customers.
The customers now know the state knows how much they've bought so they will be compelled to pay the use tax.
It will also be easy to do since they just have to add up all their 1099-Es.
It shouldn't be difficult for a business to keep track of the total spending for a customer and issue a couple automated forms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569676</id>
	<title>Note the lack of mentioning all the other taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262003340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The NY times article chooses to skip mentioning all the taxes other than sales tax Amazon would be paying in those areas with its isolated tax groups. I also think it's cute that they feel amazon has a moral right to pay more taxes in this 'time of hardship'.  But really, people are surprised when a company is avoiding as many taxes as possible, especially a tax that would make them less able to make a profit? They're surprised people aren't paying use taxes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NY times article chooses to skip mentioning all the taxes other than sales tax Amazon would be paying in those areas with its isolated tax groups .
I also think it 's cute that they feel amazon has a moral right to pay more taxes in this 'time of hardship' .
But really , people are surprised when a company is avoiding as many taxes as possible , especially a tax that would make them less able to make a profit ?
They 're surprised people are n't paying use taxes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NY times article chooses to skip mentioning all the taxes other than sales tax Amazon would be paying in those areas with its isolated tax groups.
I also think it's cute that they feel amazon has a moral right to pay more taxes in this 'time of hardship'.
But really, people are surprised when a company is avoiding as many taxes as possible, especially a tax that would make them less able to make a profit?
They're surprised people aren't paying use taxes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570284</id>
	<title>Re:Once again, it's the government's fault</title>
	<author>AnotherUsername</author>
	<datestamp>1262010660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it is now the United States of California and New York?  I always thought that there were more than 2 states in the country...And to think that I thought I was born in Illinois.  Is that on the California side or the New York side?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it is now the United States of California and New York ?
I always thought that there were more than 2 states in the country...And to think that I thought I was born in Illinois .
Is that on the California side or the New York side ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it is now the United States of California and New York?
I always thought that there were more than 2 states in the country...And to think that I thought I was born in Illinois.
Is that on the California side or the New York side?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573062</id>
	<title>Re:Smaller companies?</title>
	<author>Cytotoxic</author>
	<datestamp>1262025120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Someone buys something for a couple bucks and suddenly you have to send payments of a few cents to three different places.  Even if you save it all up and send it bi-yearly you could be looking at thousands of separate payments based on how widespread your client base is.</p></div><p>This is so on-point that it clearly doesn't belong on slashdot. </p><p>I'll do you one better, having collected multi-jurisdictional sales taxes in the past myself:  You can't save it up and send it bi-yearly.  Most places require <b>monthly</b> filing of sales taxes.  That's right, every month.  So if you made a few dozen sales per month as a small online retailer, you'd have to send sales tax payments to every jurisdiction involved in their own approved format with their own approved forms. </p><p> In my business in Georgia I had to file sales tax forms every single month, even if I didn't have any sales that month.  So if I were a nationwide online retailer doing 20 transactions per month, I'd have to fill out sales tax forms for every single jurisdiction every single month, even though most of them were getting nothing and a few were getting a couple of bucks.  The cost of compliance with the tax will easily far exceed the amount of tax paid, both for me as the retailer and for the government as tax collector.  A true lose-lose situation.  </p><p>The only way nationwide sales tax collections can possibly prove workable is via a centralized electronic tax clearinghouse.  This would actually be of benefit to brick and mortar retailers as well, as it would simplify their compliance too.  This is why it is so unlikely to happen.  Online retailers enjoy the benefits of an internet tax haven and have no inclination to give up this advantage.  Brick and Mortar stores want the advantage of localization without competing against a tax advantaged competitor - so they'd love to keep the barrier to entry high for non-local retailers. </p><p>
It is a shame, because this would be a pretty simple system to implement by federal fiat - simply publish the XML schema for the data interchange and set up a deadline for implementation for states and for retailers.  Retailers could roll their own or contract with a service provider.  The whole thing would be trivial (-ish) with that top-down mandate.  My dev team could definitely handle this project, probably going live within 30 days.  The whole thing depends on having complete definitions from the states.  Given that, the rest is a fairly trivial web service and database.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone buys something for a couple bucks and suddenly you have to send payments of a few cents to three different places .
Even if you save it all up and send it bi-yearly you could be looking at thousands of separate payments based on how widespread your client base is.This is so on-point that it clearly does n't belong on slashdot .
I 'll do you one better , having collected multi-jurisdictional sales taxes in the past myself : You ca n't save it up and send it bi-yearly .
Most places require monthly filing of sales taxes .
That 's right , every month .
So if you made a few dozen sales per month as a small online retailer , you 'd have to send sales tax payments to every jurisdiction involved in their own approved format with their own approved forms .
In my business in Georgia I had to file sales tax forms every single month , even if I did n't have any sales that month .
So if I were a nationwide online retailer doing 20 transactions per month , I 'd have to fill out sales tax forms for every single jurisdiction every single month , even though most of them were getting nothing and a few were getting a couple of bucks .
The cost of compliance with the tax will easily far exceed the amount of tax paid , both for me as the retailer and for the government as tax collector .
A true lose-lose situation .
The only way nationwide sales tax collections can possibly prove workable is via a centralized electronic tax clearinghouse .
This would actually be of benefit to brick and mortar retailers as well , as it would simplify their compliance too .
This is why it is so unlikely to happen .
Online retailers enjoy the benefits of an internet tax haven and have no inclination to give up this advantage .
Brick and Mortar stores want the advantage of localization without competing against a tax advantaged competitor - so they 'd love to keep the barrier to entry high for non-local retailers .
It is a shame , because this would be a pretty simple system to implement by federal fiat - simply publish the XML schema for the data interchange and set up a deadline for implementation for states and for retailers .
Retailers could roll their own or contract with a service provider .
The whole thing would be trivial ( -ish ) with that top-down mandate .
My dev team could definitely handle this project , probably going live within 30 days .
The whole thing depends on having complete definitions from the states .
Given that , the rest is a fairly trivial web service and database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone buys something for a couple bucks and suddenly you have to send payments of a few cents to three different places.
Even if you save it all up and send it bi-yearly you could be looking at thousands of separate payments based on how widespread your client base is.This is so on-point that it clearly doesn't belong on slashdot.
I'll do you one better, having collected multi-jurisdictional sales taxes in the past myself:  You can't save it up and send it bi-yearly.
Most places require monthly filing of sales taxes.
That's right, every month.
So if you made a few dozen sales per month as a small online retailer, you'd have to send sales tax payments to every jurisdiction involved in their own approved format with their own approved forms.
In my business in Georgia I had to file sales tax forms every single month, even if I didn't have any sales that month.
So if I were a nationwide online retailer doing 20 transactions per month, I'd have to fill out sales tax forms for every single jurisdiction every single month, even though most of them were getting nothing and a few were getting a couple of bucks.
The cost of compliance with the tax will easily far exceed the amount of tax paid, both for me as the retailer and for the government as tax collector.
A true lose-lose situation.
The only way nationwide sales tax collections can possibly prove workable is via a centralized electronic tax clearinghouse.
This would actually be of benefit to brick and mortar retailers as well, as it would simplify their compliance too.
This is why it is so unlikely to happen.
Online retailers enjoy the benefits of an internet tax haven and have no inclination to give up this advantage.
Brick and Mortar stores want the advantage of localization without competing against a tax advantaged competitor - so they'd love to keep the barrier to entry high for non-local retailers.
It is a shame, because this would be a pretty simple system to implement by federal fiat - simply publish the XML schema for the data interchange and set up a deadline for implementation for states and for retailers.
Retailers could roll their own or contract with a service provider.
The whole thing would be trivial (-ish) with that top-down mandate.
My dev team could definitely handle this project, probably going live within 30 days.
The whole thing depends on having complete definitions from the states.
Given that, the rest is a fairly trivial web service and database.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576794</id>
	<title>Re:Note the lack of mentioning all the other taxes</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1262001180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aside from "special cases" (hotels, rental cars, and restaurants) what's the maximum tax rate?  In Texas, the state charges 6.25\% and caps local taxes at 2\%, so your rate could vary between 6.25 and 8.25\%.  So, there's only a small difference in the price of a book.  And rarely will driving anywhere save you more than the cost of the gas.  The only exceptions to that is is you are right on the edge of some place with a lower local rate.<br> <br>You described all sorts of "special cases" but for a book, Amazon's main fare, what are the maximum and minimum taxes someone could see in Chicago and the surrounding area?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from " special cases " ( hotels , rental cars , and restaurants ) what 's the maximum tax rate ?
In Texas , the state charges 6.25 \ % and caps local taxes at 2 \ % , so your rate could vary between 6.25 and 8.25 \ % .
So , there 's only a small difference in the price of a book .
And rarely will driving anywhere save you more than the cost of the gas .
The only exceptions to that is is you are right on the edge of some place with a lower local rate .
You described all sorts of " special cases " but for a book , Amazon 's main fare , what are the maximum and minimum taxes someone could see in Chicago and the surrounding area ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from "special cases" (hotels, rental cars, and restaurants) what's the maximum tax rate?
In Texas, the state charges 6.25\% and caps local taxes at 2\%, so your rate could vary between 6.25 and 8.25\%.
So, there's only a small difference in the price of a book.
And rarely will driving anywhere save you more than the cost of the gas.
The only exceptions to that is is you are right on the edge of some place with a lower local rate.
You described all sorts of "special cases" but for a book, Amazon's main fare, what are the maximum and minimum taxes someone could see in Chicago and the surrounding area?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30579894</id>
	<title>Re:Only amazon?</title>
	<author>tacocat</author>
	<datestamp>1262118480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not full circle.  Only half the circle.  If you kept the Corporations out of the Government then you would be full circle and we might actually have unfettered free-market capitalism.</p><p>But we have not had a Free Market since the early 1800's.</p><ul>
<li>Bailing out the banks was a mistake the Government made.</li><li>But the banks got into trouble because the banks could offload loans into Government managed Freddie/Fanny.</li><li>And the Federal Reserve allowed interest rates to run unnaturally low rather than rising as they should have starting in the 1990's.</li><li>The Federal Reserve was created by the Government as a lender of last resort for the banks in the 1910's.  At the time interest rates for the Fed were kept unnaturally high as a punitive measure for borrowing money from the Fed.  Since then, Banks have convinced the Fed that they need the have lending rates managed unnaturally low by the Fed to manage stimulus.</li><li>Since the 1920's we have been a banking system of fractional reserve banking.  This is a sure fire recipe for Boom/Bust cycles as has been witnessed time and again.</li><li>Since 1970's we have been a fiat currency nation without any real hard money.  With this the government can monetize debt, direct inflation at will, and create money out of thin air for their own uses.  And the rest of us wonder why food is so much more expensive today with all the efficiency improvements in the last 100 years.</li></ul><p>The interference of the Government upon Free Market is the cause of these economic problems, not the solution.  If you doubt this then consider the success of the communist experiment of the USSR.  How's that working for them?  Similarly Zimbabwe might have a few lessons as well as the Weimer Republic</p><p>You sound like a socialist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not full circle .
Only half the circle .
If you kept the Corporations out of the Government then you would be full circle and we might actually have unfettered free-market capitalism.But we have not had a Free Market since the early 1800 's .
Bailing out the banks was a mistake the Government made.But the banks got into trouble because the banks could offload loans into Government managed Freddie/Fanny.And the Federal Reserve allowed interest rates to run unnaturally low rather than rising as they should have starting in the 1990 's.The Federal Reserve was created by the Government as a lender of last resort for the banks in the 1910 's .
At the time interest rates for the Fed were kept unnaturally high as a punitive measure for borrowing money from the Fed .
Since then , Banks have convinced the Fed that they need the have lending rates managed unnaturally low by the Fed to manage stimulus.Since the 1920 's we have been a banking system of fractional reserve banking .
This is a sure fire recipe for Boom/Bust cycles as has been witnessed time and again.Since 1970 's we have been a fiat currency nation without any real hard money .
With this the government can monetize debt , direct inflation at will , and create money out of thin air for their own uses .
And the rest of us wonder why food is so much more expensive today with all the efficiency improvements in the last 100 years.The interference of the Government upon Free Market is the cause of these economic problems , not the solution .
If you doubt this then consider the success of the communist experiment of the USSR .
How 's that working for them ?
Similarly Zimbabwe might have a few lessons as well as the Weimer RepublicYou sound like a socialist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not full circle.
Only half the circle.
If you kept the Corporations out of the Government then you would be full circle and we might actually have unfettered free-market capitalism.But we have not had a Free Market since the early 1800's.
Bailing out the banks was a mistake the Government made.But the banks got into trouble because the banks could offload loans into Government managed Freddie/Fanny.And the Federal Reserve allowed interest rates to run unnaturally low rather than rising as they should have starting in the 1990's.The Federal Reserve was created by the Government as a lender of last resort for the banks in the 1910's.
At the time interest rates for the Fed were kept unnaturally high as a punitive measure for borrowing money from the Fed.
Since then, Banks have convinced the Fed that they need the have lending rates managed unnaturally low by the Fed to manage stimulus.Since the 1920's we have been a banking system of fractional reserve banking.
This is a sure fire recipe for Boom/Bust cycles as has been witnessed time and again.Since 1970's we have been a fiat currency nation without any real hard money.
With this the government can monetize debt, direct inflation at will, and create money out of thin air for their own uses.
And the rest of us wonder why food is so much more expensive today with all the efficiency improvements in the last 100 years.The interference of the Government upon Free Market is the cause of these economic problems, not the solution.
If you doubt this then consider the success of the communist experiment of the USSR.
How's that working for them?
Similarly Zimbabwe might have a few lessons as well as the Weimer RepublicYou sound like a socialist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569778</id>
	<title>Re:Let the liberal media pay taxes for once.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262004900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you really just say that Linus Torvalds should pay taxes for the billions of dollars that Linux is worth?</p><p>On Slashdot?</p><p>By the way, I don't think that code has that much monetary value, since he can't actually sell it. Sure, the net economic gain from using Linux could very well be in the billions, but that doesn't mean the guy is ever going to own the Moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you really just say that Linus Torvalds should pay taxes for the billions of dollars that Linux is worth ? On Slashdot ? By the way , I do n't think that code has that much monetary value , since he ca n't actually sell it .
Sure , the net economic gain from using Linux could very well be in the billions , but that does n't mean the guy is ever going to own the Moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you really just say that Linus Torvalds should pay taxes for the billions of dollars that Linux is worth?On Slashdot?By the way, I don't think that code has that much monetary value, since he can't actually sell it.
Sure, the net economic gain from using Linux could very well be in the billions, but that doesn't mean the guy is ever going to own the Moon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570146</id>
	<title>As someone who purchased ...</title>
	<author>d1on1x</author>
	<datestamp>1262009760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read quite a few (not all) comments on this page, but what I cannot understand is why people feel that Amazons defense ("it's too complicated") is valid, when you consider that we are talking about the company who can do magic with their recommendations on a sale-level; people who bought this also bought that, 57\% people on this page bought this item, the others went here, combo deals with books you viewed before, etc. You'd think they would be able to come up with a system for the taxes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wanting to is something completely different.<br> <br>

I can perfectly understand that it's not as simple as the EU system (e.g. I pay 19\% VAT), however, it's not fair to claim that on a $9.99 book they have to pay 0.12 here and 0.53 there instantly, since that is most probably not the case in the first place. Amazon has to collect the amounts and send them off every X (month/quarter), same as they do with VAT they collect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read quite a few ( not all ) comments on this page , but what I can not understand is why people feel that Amazons defense ( " it 's too complicated " ) is valid , when you consider that we are talking about the company who can do magic with their recommendations on a sale-level ; people who bought this also bought that , 57 \ % people on this page bought this item , the others went here , combo deals with books you viewed before , etc .
You 'd think they would be able to come up with a system for the taxes ... wanting to is something completely different .
I can perfectly understand that it 's not as simple as the EU system ( e.g .
I pay 19 \ % VAT ) , however , it 's not fair to claim that on a $ 9.99 book they have to pay 0.12 here and 0.53 there instantly , since that is most probably not the case in the first place .
Amazon has to collect the amounts and send them off every X ( month/quarter ) , same as they do with VAT they collect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read quite a few (not all) comments on this page, but what I cannot understand is why people feel that Amazons defense ("it's too complicated") is valid, when you consider that we are talking about the company who can do magic with their recommendations on a sale-level; people who bought this also bought that, 57\% people on this page bought this item, the others went here, combo deals with books you viewed before, etc.
You'd think they would be able to come up with a system for the taxes ... wanting to is something completely different.
I can perfectly understand that it's not as simple as the EU system (e.g.
I pay 19\% VAT), however, it's not fair to claim that on a $9.99 book they have to pay 0.12 here and 0.53 there instantly, since that is most probably not the case in the first place.
Amazon has to collect the amounts and send them off every X (month/quarter), same as they do with VAT they collect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30575302</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it be wonderful,</title>
	<author>nEoN nOoDlE</author>
	<datestamp>1261992900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm annoyed with companies avoiding paying tax but then using the government system to seek protections or create laws for their benefit.</p></div><p>But the government and big companies believe in the same thing - that is businesses are allowed to operate freely and without any restrictions, the money will trickle down to the working class. The government creates these loopholes so huge corporations can take advantage of them and then buy into the government to create more loopholes, ad infinitum.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm annoyed with companies avoiding paying tax but then using the government system to seek protections or create laws for their benefit.But the government and big companies believe in the same thing - that is businesses are allowed to operate freely and without any restrictions , the money will trickle down to the working class .
The government creates these loopholes so huge corporations can take advantage of them and then buy into the government to create more loopholes , ad infinitum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm annoyed with companies avoiding paying tax but then using the government system to seek protections or create laws for their benefit.But the government and big companies believe in the same thing - that is businesses are allowed to operate freely and without any restrictions, the money will trickle down to the working class.
The government creates these loopholes so huge corporations can take advantage of them and then buy into the government to create more loopholes, ad infinitum.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726</id>
	<title>Wouldn't it be wonderful,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262004120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>if there were no tax heavens anywhere in the world and businesses just paid what they owed like the rest of us.  Sure the prices will go up but if this happened from the get go, it wouldn't be an issue.

I'm annoyed with companies avoiding paying tax but then using the government system to seek protections or create laws for their benefit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if there were no tax heavens anywhere in the world and businesses just paid what they owed like the rest of us .
Sure the prices will go up but if this happened from the get go , it would n't be an issue .
I 'm annoyed with companies avoiding paying tax but then using the government system to seek protections or create laws for their benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if there were no tax heavens anywhere in the world and businesses just paid what they owed like the rest of us.
Sure the prices will go up but if this happened from the get go, it wouldn't be an issue.
I'm annoyed with companies avoiding paying tax but then using the government system to seek protections or create laws for their benefit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573942</id>
	<title>Re:Part of the problem</title>
	<author>Princeofcups</author>
	<datestamp>1262029260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Laws like this only fuel racism, if we are all equal, then why the fuck do we have different laws for different races?<br>
&nbsp;</p> </div><p>Sorry, we'll just give them back their land.  You have to give up your home and move back to Europe now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Laws like this only fuel racism , if we are all equal , then why the fuck do we have different laws for different races ?
  Sorry , we 'll just give them back their land .
You have to give up your home and move back to Europe now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laws like this only fuel racism, if we are all equal, then why the fuck do we have different laws for different races?
  Sorry, we'll just give them back their land.
You have to give up your home and move back to Europe now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574176</id>
	<title>Can you say Vertex?</title>
	<author>raftpeople</author>
	<datestamp>1262030280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Solutions to this problem have existed for a loooong time.  I have developed consumer systems that used Vertex in the late 80's and 90's.<br> <br>
Whether it's right or not is a different question, but it is not any more of a burden than any other service that businesses typically use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Solutions to this problem have existed for a loooong time .
I have developed consumer systems that used Vertex in the late 80 's and 90 's .
Whether it 's right or not is a different question , but it is not any more of a burden than any other service that businesses typically use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solutions to this problem have existed for a loooong time.
I have developed consumer systems that used Vertex in the late 80's and 90's.
Whether it's right or not is a different question, but it is not any more of a burden than any other service that businesses typically use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571368</id>
	<title>Re:The dangers of stupid taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262017260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you on the first point, I would liken a state/local municipality trying to get sales taxes from a non local business to someone putting a toll booth on a road they don't own or maintain and demanding money from every one that passes by.  That business doesn't use any local resources, any damage done to the roads by shipping vehicles is paid for by the shipping company in the form of vehicle registrations, gas tax, property tax, and business tax (well, except for USPS I believe).  Even the business itself pays plenty of taxes, Property tax, business tax, Employee taxes; at their business location.  To say that they "cheat taxes" is disingenuous to say the least.</p><p>On the second point, while I will agree that some municipality's definitely do gouge their citizens, there are at least a few that are pretty fiscally responsible (well, for the most part).  I think the highest paid individual in our county gets around $45,000, the average being around $35,000 to $39,000.  I was proud of our county (In southerly Michigan) when instead of trying to hike taxes all county government departments were asked to cut their budgets (~5.25\%).  I believe all but one did it too, the police department complained theirs down to about 2-2.5\%, of an over 8 Million budget for a county of only ~95,000 including several sizable cities they don't patrol.</p><p>Disclaimer, I'm a county employee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you on the first point , I would liken a state/local municipality trying to get sales taxes from a non local business to someone putting a toll booth on a road they do n't own or maintain and demanding money from every one that passes by .
That business does n't use any local resources , any damage done to the roads by shipping vehicles is paid for by the shipping company in the form of vehicle registrations , gas tax , property tax , and business tax ( well , except for USPS I believe ) .
Even the business itself pays plenty of taxes , Property tax , business tax , Employee taxes ; at their business location .
To say that they " cheat taxes " is disingenuous to say the least.On the second point , while I will agree that some municipality 's definitely do gouge their citizens , there are at least a few that are pretty fiscally responsible ( well , for the most part ) .
I think the highest paid individual in our county gets around $ 45,000 , the average being around $ 35,000 to $ 39,000 .
I was proud of our county ( In southerly Michigan ) when instead of trying to hike taxes all county government departments were asked to cut their budgets ( ~ 5.25 \ % ) .
I believe all but one did it too , the police department complained theirs down to about 2-2.5 \ % , of an over 8 Million budget for a county of only ~ 95,000 including several sizable cities they do n't patrol.Disclaimer , I 'm a county employee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you on the first point, I would liken a state/local municipality trying to get sales taxes from a non local business to someone putting a toll booth on a road they don't own or maintain and demanding money from every one that passes by.
That business doesn't use any local resources, any damage done to the roads by shipping vehicles is paid for by the shipping company in the form of vehicle registrations, gas tax, property tax, and business tax (well, except for USPS I believe).
Even the business itself pays plenty of taxes, Property tax, business tax, Employee taxes; at their business location.
To say that they "cheat taxes" is disingenuous to say the least.On the second point, while I will agree that some municipality's definitely do gouge their citizens, there are at least a few that are pretty fiscally responsible (well, for the most part).
I think the highest paid individual in our county gets around $45,000, the average being around $35,000 to $39,000.
I was proud of our county (In southerly Michigan) when instead of trying to hike taxes all county government departments were asked to cut their budgets (~5.25\%).
I believe all but one did it too, the police department complained theirs down to about 2-2.5\%, of an over 8 Million budget for a county of only ~95,000 including several sizable cities they don't patrol.Disclaimer, I'm a county employee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570136</id>
	<title>The press is self-interested on this topic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262009760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The NY Times and other paper publications are right now on a crusade to attack the low cost base of internet business.
<br> <br>
They are talking about de-indexing Google for similar reasons.
<br> <br>
We should understand the interests behind such attacks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NY Times and other paper publications are right now on a crusade to attack the low cost base of internet business .
They are talking about de-indexing Google for similar reasons .
We should understand the interests behind such attacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NY Times and other paper publications are right now on a crusade to attack the low cost base of internet business.
They are talking about de-indexing Google for similar reasons.
We should understand the interests behind such attacks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574128</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>eht</author>
	<datestamp>1262030100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not strictly true that a brick and mortar store only has to deal with one tax rate. When I lived in New York state, the county I lived in had a lower tax rate than the county I bought my car from, I was charged the tax rate for the county I lived in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not strictly true that a brick and mortar store only has to deal with one tax rate .
When I lived in New York state , the county I lived in had a lower tax rate than the county I bought my car from , I was charged the tax rate for the county I lived in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not strictly true that a brick and mortar store only has to deal with one tax rate.
When I lived in New York state, the county I lived in had a lower tax rate than the county I bought my car from, I was charged the tax rate for the county I lived in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573578</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>frankxcid</author>
	<datestamp>1262027460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, No, No, it is not a burden to keep track of the taxes.  The burden is the paying and collecting of the taxes.  The burden is on the customers. The Burden is we, the customers, have to pay more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , No , No , it is not a burden to keep track of the taxes .
The burden is the paying and collecting of the taxes .
The burden is on the customers .
The Burden is we , the customers , have to pay more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, No, No, it is not a burden to keep track of the taxes.
The burden is the paying and collecting of the taxes.
The burden is on the customers.
The Burden is we, the customers, have to pay more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569832</id>
	<title>No Way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262005920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>       This is an attempt to please brick and mortar stores who want to push electronic sales into the toilet. On line sales already carry a great burden in shipping costs. If you add taxes on top of shipping costs you kill online sales completely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an attempt to please brick and mortar stores who want to push electronic sales into the toilet .
On line sales already carry a great burden in shipping costs .
If you add taxes on top of shipping costs you kill online sales completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>       This is an attempt to please brick and mortar stores who want to push electronic sales into the toilet.
On line sales already carry a great burden in shipping costs.
If you add taxes on top of shipping costs you kill online sales completely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569968</id>
	<title>They are already doing it!</title>
	<author>Katchu</author>
	<datestamp>1262007780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Target is operating from within the Amazon world. All taxes are appropriately computed and assessed there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Target is operating from within the Amazon world .
All taxes are appropriately computed and assessed there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Target is operating from within the Amazon world.
All taxes are appropriately computed and assessed there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30577414</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it be wonderful,</title>
	<author>forceman130</author>
	<datestamp>1262005980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if there were no tax heavens anywhere in the world and businesses just paid what they owed like the rest of us. Sure the prices will go up but if this happened from the get go, it wouldn't be an issue. I'm annoyed with companies avoiding paying tax but then using the government system to seek protections or create laws for their benefit.</p></div><p>
Except this isn't about companies not paying <i>their</i> taxes, it's about them not collecting taxes that <i>you</i> should pay.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if there were no tax heavens anywhere in the world and businesses just paid what they owed like the rest of us .
Sure the prices will go up but if this happened from the get go , it would n't be an issue .
I 'm annoyed with companies avoiding paying tax but then using the government system to seek protections or create laws for their benefit .
Except this is n't about companies not paying their taxes , it 's about them not collecting taxes that you should pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if there were no tax heavens anywhere in the world and businesses just paid what they owed like the rest of us.
Sure the prices will go up but if this happened from the get go, it wouldn't be an issue.
I'm annoyed with companies avoiding paying tax but then using the government system to seek protections or create laws for their benefit.
Except this isn't about companies not paying their taxes, it's about them not collecting taxes that you should pay.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30577360</id>
	<title>Re:"tax" problem was solved in mid-1990s</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1262005380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They didn't prohibit taxing the internet, they let internet sales operate under existing mail order laws.  Unless you really want to get into all those taxes the like of Sears owes for over a century?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't prohibit taxing the internet , they let internet sales operate under existing mail order laws .
Unless you really want to get into all those taxes the like of Sears owes for over a century ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't prohibit taxing the internet, they let internet sales operate under existing mail order laws.
Unless you really want to get into all those taxes the like of Sears owes for over a century?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570282</id>
	<title>"tax" problem was solved in mid-1990s</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1262010660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Several start-ups developed zip-code based tax collection systems at the dawn of the web era.  They were little-used, but exist.  The US Congress prohibited "taxing the internet" for most of the 1990s and 2000s to the chargrin of states. Problably would hurt the dot.com bubbles they were speculating in.
<br>
Customers hate paying sales taxes too.  So many use the internet for that reason.
<br>
After two major recessions this decade, governments are re-examining the tax issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Several start-ups developed zip-code based tax collection systems at the dawn of the web era .
They were little-used , but exist .
The US Congress prohibited " taxing the internet " for most of the 1990s and 2000s to the chargrin of states .
Problably would hurt the dot.com bubbles they were speculating in .
Customers hate paying sales taxes too .
So many use the internet for that reason .
After two major recessions this decade , governments are re-examining the tax issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several start-ups developed zip-code based tax collection systems at the dawn of the web era.
They were little-used, but exist.
The US Congress prohibited "taxing the internet" for most of the 1990s and 2000s to the chargrin of states.
Problably would hurt the dot.com bubbles they were speculating in.
Customers hate paying sales taxes too.
So many use the internet for that reason.
After two major recessions this decade, governments are re-examining the tax issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573420</id>
	<title>Re:Once again, it's the government's fault</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1262026680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That looks exactly like an import duty between states, which is unconstitutional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That looks exactly like an import duty between states , which is unconstitutional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That looks exactly like an import duty between states, which is unconstitutional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573788</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>Kreplock</author>
	<datestamp>1262028420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some greedy capitalist will figure a way beyond this burden and make money from it at the same time.</p><p>There are already corporations whose sole focus is to track tax rates of various government entities and issue an updated electronic catalog to their (corporate) subscribers.  If the sales tax information offerings already available are not satisfactory Amazon could create their own in-house solution, then make it pay for itself by re-selling this service to other companies.  That would be nice for Amazon, but consumers of all things online will end up paying not only these taxes but also for the services and infrastructure for companies to conform.</p><p>The problem is the tax-drunken government entities tirelessly finding new ways to tax.  Nothing makes me want to party French-Revolution style like taxes and bureaucrats.  I don't want this tax, I want less spending.  Governments at all levels have increased spending far beyond economic growth rates for decades now because it's really easy to spend someone else's money.  I applaud Amazon's efforts to resist these taxes.  It's not the government's money, it's ours.  Even when they pass a law saying otherwise.</p><p>It's not the government's money, it's ours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some greedy capitalist will figure a way beyond this burden and make money from it at the same time.There are already corporations whose sole focus is to track tax rates of various government entities and issue an updated electronic catalog to their ( corporate ) subscribers .
If the sales tax information offerings already available are not satisfactory Amazon could create their own in-house solution , then make it pay for itself by re-selling this service to other companies .
That would be nice for Amazon , but consumers of all things online will end up paying not only these taxes but also for the services and infrastructure for companies to conform.The problem is the tax-drunken government entities tirelessly finding new ways to tax .
Nothing makes me want to party French-Revolution style like taxes and bureaucrats .
I do n't want this tax , I want less spending .
Governments at all levels have increased spending far beyond economic growth rates for decades now because it 's really easy to spend someone else 's money .
I applaud Amazon 's efforts to resist these taxes .
It 's not the government 's money , it 's ours .
Even when they pass a law saying otherwise.It 's not the government 's money , it 's ours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some greedy capitalist will figure a way beyond this burden and make money from it at the same time.There are already corporations whose sole focus is to track tax rates of various government entities and issue an updated electronic catalog to their (corporate) subscribers.
If the sales tax information offerings already available are not satisfactory Amazon could create their own in-house solution, then make it pay for itself by re-selling this service to other companies.
That would be nice for Amazon, but consumers of all things online will end up paying not only these taxes but also for the services and infrastructure for companies to conform.The problem is the tax-drunken government entities tirelessly finding new ways to tax.
Nothing makes me want to party French-Revolution style like taxes and bureaucrats.
I don't want this tax, I want less spending.
Governments at all levels have increased spending far beyond economic growth rates for decades now because it's really easy to spend someone else's money.
I applaud Amazon's efforts to resist these taxes.
It's not the government's money, it's ours.
Even when they pass a law saying otherwise.It's not the government's money, it's ours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569920</id>
	<title>Re:Smaller companies?</title>
	<author>berberine</author>
	<datestamp>1262006940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ten years ago, I worked for Nebraska Bookstore.  It's not huge when compared to Amazon or Barnes and Noble.  I worked in their catalog department.  When we rang up an order, out of state purchases got 0\% tax and, if it was shipped in-state, there was a little chart above the register with each city listed alphabetically and what their tax was.  This was because, in Nebraska, there is a state tax and a city tax.  So, they figured out what the two together were and made a handy list for us.
<br>
<br>
Everything we did was manual but, from what I've heard, they now have a computer program that figures it out for you and you just punch in the complete total (purchase+tax+shipping) when you ring it up.  I would assume that since this was ten years ago, there are better programs now to do the same thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten years ago , I worked for Nebraska Bookstore .
It 's not huge when compared to Amazon or Barnes and Noble .
I worked in their catalog department .
When we rang up an order , out of state purchases got 0 \ % tax and , if it was shipped in-state , there was a little chart above the register with each city listed alphabetically and what their tax was .
This was because , in Nebraska , there is a state tax and a city tax .
So , they figured out what the two together were and made a handy list for us .
Everything we did was manual but , from what I 've heard , they now have a computer program that figures it out for you and you just punch in the complete total ( purchase + tax + shipping ) when you ring it up .
I would assume that since this was ten years ago , there are better programs now to do the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten years ago, I worked for Nebraska Bookstore.
It's not huge when compared to Amazon or Barnes and Noble.
I worked in their catalog department.
When we rang up an order, out of state purchases got 0\% tax and, if it was shipped in-state, there was a little chart above the register with each city listed alphabetically and what their tax was.
This was because, in Nebraska, there is a state tax and a city tax.
So, they figured out what the two together were and made a handy list for us.
Everything we did was manual but, from what I've heard, they now have a computer program that figures it out for you and you just punch in the complete total (purchase+tax+shipping) when you ring it up.
I would assume that since this was ten years ago, there are better programs now to do the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573348</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>Lil'wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1262026260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The solution to this is even more insidious.  Let Amazon and others be required to provide a list of product shipments, and sales amounts to addresses and let the various taxing entities collect the use tax/sales tax from the recipient.  That way the governments get their money and our privacy is destroyed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution to this is even more insidious .
Let Amazon and others be required to provide a list of product shipments , and sales amounts to addresses and let the various taxing entities collect the use tax/sales tax from the recipient .
That way the governments get their money and our privacy is destroyed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution to this is even more insidious.
Let Amazon and others be required to provide a list of product shipments, and sales amounts to addresses and let the various taxing entities collect the use tax/sales tax from the recipient.
That way the governments get their money and our privacy is destroyed!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570750</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1262014080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a possible solution: An open-source project (possibly LGPL'd) with the end result being a database and code that can be called with an address and price, and returns the tax rate and who's supposed to get paid for that tax. It would be a PITA, but this is exactly the sort of thing a FOSS project can provide: it's a problem that everyone has, but the gains of solving it collectively far outweigh any competitive advantage that might exist.</p><p>And given that my company, with a crew of about 50 developers, could figure it out for several states, I'm thinking it would be hard but not that hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a possible solution : An open-source project ( possibly LGPL 'd ) with the end result being a database and code that can be called with an address and price , and returns the tax rate and who 's supposed to get paid for that tax .
It would be a PITA , but this is exactly the sort of thing a FOSS project can provide : it 's a problem that everyone has , but the gains of solving it collectively far outweigh any competitive advantage that might exist.And given that my company , with a crew of about 50 developers , could figure it out for several states , I 'm thinking it would be hard but not that hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a possible solution: An open-source project (possibly LGPL'd) with the end result being a database and code that can be called with an address and price, and returns the tax rate and who's supposed to get paid for that tax.
It would be a PITA, but this is exactly the sort of thing a FOSS project can provide: it's a problem that everyone has, but the gains of solving it collectively far outweigh any competitive advantage that might exist.And given that my company, with a crew of about 50 developers, could figure it out for several states, I'm thinking it would be hard but not that hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569664</id>
	<title>How do you think it works in the EU ?</title>
	<author>BESTouff</author>
	<datestamp>1262003160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amazon has to collect taxes in countries where the law makes it mandatory, e.g. in the EU. So it's not so hard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon has to collect taxes in countries where the law makes it mandatory , e.g .
in the EU .
So it 's not so hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon has to collect taxes in countries where the law makes it mandatory, e.g.
in the EU.
So it's not so hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934</id>
	<title>Once again, it's the government's fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262007240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All it would take is for California and New York to each pass a law creating a standardized tax rate for their entire state. No local sales taxes, etc. Just a single state sales tax which is redistributed by the state tax authority to municipal governments. It would then be as easy for Amazon as "cut a check every month and mail it to Sacramento or Albany."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All it would take is for California and New York to each pass a law creating a standardized tax rate for their entire state .
No local sales taxes , etc .
Just a single state sales tax which is redistributed by the state tax authority to municipal governments .
It would then be as easy for Amazon as " cut a check every month and mail it to Sacramento or Albany .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All it would take is for California and New York to each pass a law creating a standardized tax rate for their entire state.
No local sales taxes, etc.
Just a single state sales tax which is redistributed by the state tax authority to municipal governments.
It would then be as easy for Amazon as "cut a check every month and mail it to Sacramento or Albany.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569724</id>
	<title>Let the liberal media pay taxes for once.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262004120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surprise, two liberal papers start bitching about how someone isn't paying their "fair share" of taxes, overlooking, as usual, that everyone who invests in Amazon already pays an increasing tax for it, the people that work at Amazon already pay taxes, the people that sell to Amazon pay taxes, and now they just want to add the people that buy from Amazon to that list.  Really, its just about getting more money into the government coffers so they can blow it on a bunch of crap, and the only definition of fair for any liberal is more money for them.</p><p>How about this?  Let's have the liberal media pay its fair share.  I say that intellectual property should be property taxed.  Shouldn't the New York Times and the LA Times be charged a property tax for every back article they have ever written?  If they can sell old reprints, doesn't that mean they are floating on property taxes?    Why is it that someone like a Linus Torvalds or GNU can hold a copyright to code worth billions of dollars without having paying taxes on it?  If I had a thousand acres of property, I should have to pay taxes on it.  Just because someone can live in my house for free doesn't change its assessed value.  Why shouldn't they pay for the property taxes they own?  I think we should get rid of this baked in advantage for IP industries and demand that they too pay their fair share.</p><p>If big media wants us to treat IP like it is real property, then tax it like real property.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprise , two liberal papers start bitching about how someone is n't paying their " fair share " of taxes , overlooking , as usual , that everyone who invests in Amazon already pays an increasing tax for it , the people that work at Amazon already pay taxes , the people that sell to Amazon pay taxes , and now they just want to add the people that buy from Amazon to that list .
Really , its just about getting more money into the government coffers so they can blow it on a bunch of crap , and the only definition of fair for any liberal is more money for them.How about this ?
Let 's have the liberal media pay its fair share .
I say that intellectual property should be property taxed .
Should n't the New York Times and the LA Times be charged a property tax for every back article they have ever written ?
If they can sell old reprints , does n't that mean they are floating on property taxes ?
Why is it that someone like a Linus Torvalds or GNU can hold a copyright to code worth billions of dollars without having paying taxes on it ?
If I had a thousand acres of property , I should have to pay taxes on it .
Just because someone can live in my house for free does n't change its assessed value .
Why should n't they pay for the property taxes they own ?
I think we should get rid of this baked in advantage for IP industries and demand that they too pay their fair share.If big media wants us to treat IP like it is real property , then tax it like real property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surprise, two liberal papers start bitching about how someone isn't paying their "fair share" of taxes, overlooking, as usual, that everyone who invests in Amazon already pays an increasing tax for it, the people that work at Amazon already pay taxes, the people that sell to Amazon pay taxes, and now they just want to add the people that buy from Amazon to that list.
Really, its just about getting more money into the government coffers so they can blow it on a bunch of crap, and the only definition of fair for any liberal is more money for them.How about this?
Let's have the liberal media pay its fair share.
I say that intellectual property should be property taxed.
Shouldn't the New York Times and the LA Times be charged a property tax for every back article they have ever written?
If they can sell old reprints, doesn't that mean they are floating on property taxes?
Why is it that someone like a Linus Torvalds or GNU can hold a copyright to code worth billions of dollars without having paying taxes on it?
If I had a thousand acres of property, I should have to pay taxes on it.
Just because someone can live in my house for free doesn't change its assessed value.
Why shouldn't they pay for the property taxes they own?
I think we should get rid of this baked in advantage for IP industries and demand that they too pay their fair share.If big media wants us to treat IP like it is real property, then tax it like real property.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570342</id>
	<title>Re:Once again, it's the government's fault</title>
	<author>Joe U</author>
	<datestamp>1262011080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one welcome our new 15\% state tax rate overlords.</p><p>Seriously, a statewide sales tax in NY would either shortchange and ruin NYC services or overcharge and ruin the always-failing upstate economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our new 15 \ % state tax rate overlords.Seriously , a statewide sales tax in NY would either shortchange and ruin NYC services or overcharge and ruin the always-failing upstate economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome our new 15\% state tax rate overlords.Seriously, a statewide sales tax in NY would either shortchange and ruin NYC services or overcharge and ruin the always-failing upstate economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30579866</id>
	<title>Uniform rules</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262118120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon has stated that if states make UNIFORM sales tax laws, then Amazon would have no problem collecting taxes.</p><p>I agree. Taxes should be equal and fair across the country. For Everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon has stated that if states make UNIFORM sales tax laws , then Amazon would have no problem collecting taxes.I agree .
Taxes should be equal and fair across the country .
For Everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon has stated that if states make UNIFORM sales tax laws, then Amazon would have no problem collecting taxes.I agree.
Taxes should be equal and fair across the country.
For Everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576288</id>
	<title>Re:Only amazon?</title>
	<author>BoberFett</author>
	<datestamp>1261997880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... corporate trickle down is bad, but government trickle down is good? Lowering taxes on the wealthy hoping the money will trickle down the plebes will never work, but sending all of your money to Washington and hoping they distribute it back to the people fairly is a good idea?</p><p>Who spent hundreds of billions of dollars to occupy Iraq recently? Amazon or the US government?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... corporate trickle down is bad , but government trickle down is good ?
Lowering taxes on the wealthy hoping the money will trickle down the plebes will never work , but sending all of your money to Washington and hoping they distribute it back to the people fairly is a good idea ? Who spent hundreds of billions of dollars to occupy Iraq recently ?
Amazon or the US government ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... corporate trickle down is bad, but government trickle down is good?
Lowering taxes on the wealthy hoping the money will trickle down the plebes will never work, but sending all of your money to Washington and hoping they distribute it back to the people fairly is a good idea?Who spent hundreds of billions of dollars to occupy Iraq recently?
Amazon or the US government?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570210</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>Felix Da Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1262010300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another alternative is for a federal law that simply requires each of the states to submit ONE tax rate for the whole state, and accept a set of exemptions designated by that federal law, to be part of the inter-state tax program. One other requirement is, to be a part of it, they treat in-state web retailers exactly the same as out-of-state (e.g. all or nothing).</p></div><p>While it might be a good idea for states to decide on a flat rate tax for internet orders of any type, we are talking about State taxes here.  Federal laws have no real weight on that topic, nor should they.</p><p>As for who collects the taxes, well, if I recall correctly, most states do actually have a section where people are expected to list their out of state purchases on their tax forms.  This sounds like a problem for NY and CA because people might not be as honest as they would like.  Then again for the people, if they buy something on a trip, they've already paid taxes on it at the point of sale, so being dunned twice seems rather foolish as well.  Yes, mail order and the internet do change people's ability to buy from out of state easily, but if any taxes are to be paid on a purchase (which annoys me almost as much as property taxes), then it should be the taxes charged at the point of sale.  i.e. Those within whichever tax jurisdiction is making the sale.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another alternative is for a federal law that simply requires each of the states to submit ONE tax rate for the whole state , and accept a set of exemptions designated by that federal law , to be part of the inter-state tax program .
One other requirement is , to be a part of it , they treat in-state web retailers exactly the same as out-of-state ( e.g .
all or nothing ) .While it might be a good idea for states to decide on a flat rate tax for internet orders of any type , we are talking about State taxes here .
Federal laws have no real weight on that topic , nor should they.As for who collects the taxes , well , if I recall correctly , most states do actually have a section where people are expected to list their out of state purchases on their tax forms .
This sounds like a problem for NY and CA because people might not be as honest as they would like .
Then again for the people , if they buy something on a trip , they 've already paid taxes on it at the point of sale , so being dunned twice seems rather foolish as well .
Yes , mail order and the internet do change people 's ability to buy from out of state easily , but if any taxes are to be paid on a purchase ( which annoys me almost as much as property taxes ) , then it should be the taxes charged at the point of sale .
i.e. Those within whichever tax jurisdiction is making the sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another alternative is for a federal law that simply requires each of the states to submit ONE tax rate for the whole state, and accept a set of exemptions designated by that federal law, to be part of the inter-state tax program.
One other requirement is, to be a part of it, they treat in-state web retailers exactly the same as out-of-state (e.g.
all or nothing).While it might be a good idea for states to decide on a flat rate tax for internet orders of any type, we are talking about State taxes here.
Federal laws have no real weight on that topic, nor should they.As for who collects the taxes, well, if I recall correctly, most states do actually have a section where people are expected to list their out of state purchases on their tax forms.
This sounds like a problem for NY and CA because people might not be as honest as they would like.
Then again for the people, if they buy something on a trip, they've already paid taxes on it at the point of sale, so being dunned twice seems rather foolish as well.
Yes, mail order and the internet do change people's ability to buy from out of state easily, but if any taxes are to be paid on a purchase (which annoys me almost as much as property taxes), then it should be the taxes charged at the point of sale.
i.e. Those within whichever tax jurisdiction is making the sale.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569714</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262003940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The New York Times article states that Amazon collects sales tax in the four states (Washington State, North Dakota, Kentucky and Kansas) in which it has presence that legally requires them to collect sales tax.  It has offices in other states, but due to the nature of these offices, amazon is not required to collect taxes in these states.</p><p>So, basically, the NYT is saying that Amazon should go above and beyond its legal obligations and pay more taxes for the hell of it.  I somehow don't see that happening anytime soon.  Perhaps those states with unbalanced budgets that could benefit from Amazon paying additional taxes should start enforcing their existing use tax laws?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The New York Times article states that Amazon collects sales tax in the four states ( Washington State , North Dakota , Kentucky and Kansas ) in which it has presence that legally requires them to collect sales tax .
It has offices in other states , but due to the nature of these offices , amazon is not required to collect taxes in these states.So , basically , the NYT is saying that Amazon should go above and beyond its legal obligations and pay more taxes for the hell of it .
I somehow do n't see that happening anytime soon .
Perhaps those states with unbalanced budgets that could benefit from Amazon paying additional taxes should start enforcing their existing use tax laws ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The New York Times article states that Amazon collects sales tax in the four states (Washington State, North Dakota, Kentucky and Kansas) in which it has presence that legally requires them to collect sales tax.
It has offices in other states, but due to the nature of these offices, amazon is not required to collect taxes in these states.So, basically, the NYT is saying that Amazon should go above and beyond its legal obligations and pay more taxes for the hell of it.
I somehow don't see that happening anytime soon.
Perhaps those states with unbalanced budgets that could benefit from Amazon paying additional taxes should start enforcing their existing use tax laws?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573540</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it be wonderful,</title>
	<author>frankxcid</author>
	<datestamp>1262027340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the main problem in the way you and others like you think.  It is not Amazon that pays taxes.  It is you and all the other customers that pays.  It is silly to want to pay additional taxes when enough is already collected.  I have a deal for you, send me the extra taxes you want to pay and I promise to send them to the government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the main problem in the way you and others like you think .
It is not Amazon that pays taxes .
It is you and all the other customers that pays .
It is silly to want to pay additional taxes when enough is already collected .
I have a deal for you , send me the extra taxes you want to pay and I promise to send them to the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the main problem in the way you and others like you think.
It is not Amazon that pays taxes.
It is you and all the other customers that pays.
It is silly to want to pay additional taxes when enough is already collected.
I have a deal for you, send me the extra taxes you want to pay and I promise to send them to the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570188</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>GeckoAddict</author>
	<datestamp>1262010180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I suggest that instead of the stores charging the tax, the credit/debit card processor charge the tax.</p></div><p>This would completely screw a lot of tourist/travel destinations.  Mall of America, the Disney Areas, shopping on Chicago's Michigan St, etc is all affected and all incentive for those municipalities to bring people in is gone.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Another alternative is for a federal law that simply requires each of the states to submit ONE tax rate for the whole state, and accept a set of exemptions designated by that federal law, to be part of the inter-state tax program.</p></div><p>Sounds like a much better idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest that instead of the stores charging the tax , the credit/debit card processor charge the tax.This would completely screw a lot of tourist/travel destinations .
Mall of America , the Disney Areas , shopping on Chicago 's Michigan St , etc is all affected and all incentive for those municipalities to bring people in is gone.Another alternative is for a federal law that simply requires each of the states to submit ONE tax rate for the whole state , and accept a set of exemptions designated by that federal law , to be part of the inter-state tax program.Sounds like a much better idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest that instead of the stores charging the tax, the credit/debit card processor charge the tax.This would completely screw a lot of tourist/travel destinations.
Mall of America, the Disney Areas, shopping on Chicago's Michigan St, etc is all affected and all incentive for those municipalities to bring people in is gone.Another alternative is for a federal law that simply requires each of the states to submit ONE tax rate for the whole state, and accept a set of exemptions designated by that federal law, to be part of the inter-state tax program.Sounds like a much better idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570368</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it be wonderful,</title>
	<author>EastCoastSurfer</author>
	<datestamp>1262011320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ugh, businesses don't pay sales tax.  They simply administer it (that adds overall item cost) and collect it from the buyer.  The buyer just happens to be normal people who are probably pinching every penny they can in the current economic climate.  Forcing Amazon to collect sales taxes is an administration cost for them and a tax increase for us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh , businesses do n't pay sales tax .
They simply administer it ( that adds overall item cost ) and collect it from the buyer .
The buyer just happens to be normal people who are probably pinching every penny they can in the current economic climate .
Forcing Amazon to collect sales taxes is an administration cost for them and a tax increase for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh, businesses don't pay sales tax.
They simply administer it (that adds overall item cost) and collect it from the buyer.
The buyer just happens to be normal people who are probably pinching every penny they can in the current economic climate.
Forcing Amazon to collect sales taxes is an administration cost for them and a tax increase for us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569882</id>
	<title>Re:Note the lack of mentioning all the other taxes</title>
	<author>adisakp</author>
	<datestamp>1262006580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the Chicago area, we have the highest as well as one of the most complicated sales tax in the nation.  I live in the NW Suburbs we pay a state tax, a cook county tax, and a local (city) sales tax.  The total in most places in Chicago and surrounding suburbs is 10.5\%.  There is also a dine-in sales tax of 1-2\% depending on city and a "loop" sales tax so you pay around 13\% tax to eat out in a restaurant.  We have different sales tax rates for General Merchandies (9\%) , Qualifying Food and Drugs (yep food taxed at 2.25\%), Vehicles (7.25 or Chicago Home Rule Tax of 8.5\%).  We have a "use tax" which may be charged instead of "sales tax" on certain occasions for General Merchandis (6.25\% - note not equal to 9\% sales tax) or Qualifying Food and Drugs (1\% - again not equal to sales tax).  We have different local rates for taxing over 2,000 special items (cigarettes, liquor, and other "sin" sales tax varying rates per community make up many of these) in IL depending on municipality including taxes on bottled water (per bottle) and a proposed additional tax on soda pop.<br> <br>
I could be paying 12-13\% sales tax for an item while someone 50 miles west of me in Rockford, IL (same state - 45 min drive on highway @65 MPH) pays only 6.5\%.<br> <br>
To be honest, if I drive the 3 miles from one town's shopping center to another here in IL, I never have any idea what the exact rate I'll be paying other than it'll be too much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the Chicago area , we have the highest as well as one of the most complicated sales tax in the nation .
I live in the NW Suburbs we pay a state tax , a cook county tax , and a local ( city ) sales tax .
The total in most places in Chicago and surrounding suburbs is 10.5 \ % .
There is also a dine-in sales tax of 1-2 \ % depending on city and a " loop " sales tax so you pay around 13 \ % tax to eat out in a restaurant .
We have different sales tax rates for General Merchandies ( 9 \ % ) , Qualifying Food and Drugs ( yep food taxed at 2.25 \ % ) , Vehicles ( 7.25 or Chicago Home Rule Tax of 8.5 \ % ) .
We have a " use tax " which may be charged instead of " sales tax " on certain occasions for General Merchandis ( 6.25 \ % - note not equal to 9 \ % sales tax ) or Qualifying Food and Drugs ( 1 \ % - again not equal to sales tax ) .
We have different local rates for taxing over 2,000 special items ( cigarettes , liquor , and other " sin " sales tax varying rates per community make up many of these ) in IL depending on municipality including taxes on bottled water ( per bottle ) and a proposed additional tax on soda pop .
I could be paying 12-13 \ % sales tax for an item while someone 50 miles west of me in Rockford , IL ( same state - 45 min drive on highway @ 65 MPH ) pays only 6.5 \ % .
To be honest , if I drive the 3 miles from one town 's shopping center to another here in IL , I never have any idea what the exact rate I 'll be paying other than it 'll be too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the Chicago area, we have the highest as well as one of the most complicated sales tax in the nation.
I live in the NW Suburbs we pay a state tax, a cook county tax, and a local (city) sales tax.
The total in most places in Chicago and surrounding suburbs is 10.5\%.
There is also a dine-in sales tax of 1-2\% depending on city and a "loop" sales tax so you pay around 13\% tax to eat out in a restaurant.
We have different sales tax rates for General Merchandies (9\%) , Qualifying Food and Drugs (yep food taxed at 2.25\%), Vehicles (7.25 or Chicago Home Rule Tax of 8.5\%).
We have a "use tax" which may be charged instead of "sales tax" on certain occasions for General Merchandis (6.25\% - note not equal to 9\% sales tax) or Qualifying Food and Drugs (1\% - again not equal to sales tax).
We have different local rates for taxing over 2,000 special items (cigarettes, liquor, and other "sin" sales tax varying rates per community make up many of these) in IL depending on municipality including taxes on bottled water (per bottle) and a proposed additional tax on soda pop.
I could be paying 12-13\% sales tax for an item while someone 50 miles west of me in Rockford, IL (same state - 45 min drive on highway @65 MPH) pays only 6.5\%.
To be honest, if I drive the 3 miles from one town's shopping center to another here in IL, I never have any idea what the exact rate I'll be paying other than it'll be too much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569708</id>
	<title>Amazon == Borg</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1262003820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason that Amazon has the advantage over all the local retailers that it <i>puts out of business</i>, is because it plays by different rules. No, it's not right, and Amazon needs to start playing by the same rules as everyone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason that Amazon has the advantage over all the local retailers that it puts out of business , is because it plays by different rules .
No , it 's not right , and Amazon needs to start playing by the same rules as everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason that Amazon has the advantage over all the local retailers that it puts out of business, is because it plays by different rules.
No, it's not right, and Amazon needs to start playing by the same rules as everyone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570218</id>
	<title>Death, whores and taxes</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1262010360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well that's two down, one to go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that 's two down , one to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that's two down, one to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570244</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here, move along</title>
	<author>Lost+Found</author>
	<datestamp>1262010480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the papers for two jurisdictions who have astronomically fucked themselves with their rampant fiscal incompetence want to steal more money from the private sector.</p><p>*Shocker*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the papers for two jurisdictions who have astronomically fucked themselves with their rampant fiscal incompetence want to steal more money from the private sector .
* Shocker *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the papers for two jurisdictions who have astronomically fucked themselves with their rampant fiscal incompetence want to steal more money from the private sector.
*Shocker*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570358</id>
	<title>Re:Smaller companies?</title>
	<author>mikelieman</author>
	<datestamp>1262011200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I can't speak to other states, but in New York, it's ordered by County ( with a very few City jurisdictions ), and you remit the total tax collected on a single check with a quarterly form.  It's fairly trivial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I ca n't speak to other states , but in New York , it 's ordered by County ( with a very few City jurisdictions ) , and you remit the total tax collected on a single check with a quarterly form .
It 's fairly trivial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I can't speak to other states, but in New York, it's ordered by County ( with a very few City jurisdictions ), and you remit the total tax collected on a single check with a quarterly form.
It's fairly trivial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570154</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262009880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, in France, small brick and mortar store have to deal with multiple taxes. We've got different taxes on books, alcoholic beverages, perfumes, DVDs, music, food, and even more that I do not know about. Some small stores sell multiple of these things and, guess, do not whine about it.<br>
Is it so hard to manage 50 different taxes matching the billing states? No, it's not.<br>
BTW, I am J2EE/PHP web developper who has already worked on an online store.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , in France , small brick and mortar store have to deal with multiple taxes .
We 've got different taxes on books , alcoholic beverages , perfumes , DVDs , music , food , and even more that I do not know about .
Some small stores sell multiple of these things and , guess , do not whine about it .
Is it so hard to manage 50 different taxes matching the billing states ?
No , it 's not .
BTW , I am J2EE/PHP web developper who has already worked on an online store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, in France, small brick and mortar store have to deal with multiple taxes.
We've got different taxes on books, alcoholic beverages, perfumes, DVDs, music, food, and even more that I do not know about.
Some small stores sell multiple of these things and, guess, do not whine about it.
Is it so hard to manage 50 different taxes matching the billing states?
No, it's not.
BTW, I am J2EE/PHP web developper who has already worked on an online store.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574240</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it be wonderful,</title>
	<author>bendodge</author>
	<datestamp>1262030640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do businesses have to owe anything? Why can't we have:<br>a) A flat tax on income, or<br>b) A flat tax on consumption?<br>It seems to blindingly simple. Even if you have two or three (Federal, State, Local) it would be so much simpler. And as far as fairness goes, you can't get much fairer than a flat percentage.</p><p>Some say it would decrease revenues be lowering taxes on the rich and big businesses, but after seeing all the headache my workplace goes through for taxes I think revenues would actually increase just because we'll make more to be taxed on without all the extra cruft in the business processes.</p><p>I don't see why a business pays taxes. Just charge people on one end or the other. It also makes government forecasting vastly simpler and encourages wiser money management (I can do what's smart rather than what's non-taxable).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do businesses have to owe anything ?
Why ca n't we have : a ) A flat tax on income , orb ) A flat tax on consumption ? It seems to blindingly simple .
Even if you have two or three ( Federal , State , Local ) it would be so much simpler .
And as far as fairness goes , you ca n't get much fairer than a flat percentage.Some say it would decrease revenues be lowering taxes on the rich and big businesses , but after seeing all the headache my workplace goes through for taxes I think revenues would actually increase just because we 'll make more to be taxed on without all the extra cruft in the business processes.I do n't see why a business pays taxes .
Just charge people on one end or the other .
It also makes government forecasting vastly simpler and encourages wiser money management ( I can do what 's smart rather than what 's non-taxable ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do businesses have to owe anything?
Why can't we have:a) A flat tax on income, orb) A flat tax on consumption?It seems to blindingly simple.
Even if you have two or three (Federal, State, Local) it would be so much simpler.
And as far as fairness goes, you can't get much fairer than a flat percentage.Some say it would decrease revenues be lowering taxes on the rich and big businesses, but after seeing all the headache my workplace goes through for taxes I think revenues would actually increase just because we'll make more to be taxed on without all the extra cruft in the business processes.I don't see why a business pays taxes.
Just charge people on one end or the other.
It also makes government forecasting vastly simpler and encourages wiser money management (I can do what's smart rather than what's non-taxable).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571528</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who purchased ...</title>
	<author>Brad Mace</author>
	<datestamp>1262018280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>recommendations on a sale-level; people who bought this also bought that, 57\% people on this page bought this item, the others went here, combo deals with books you viewed before, etc. You'd think they would be able to come up with a system for the taxes</p></div></blockquote><p>

Not the same thing at all.  There's no legal repercussions for bad recommendations, and the other features are only mildly clever <i>algorithms</i>.  Paying taxes requires understanding and then keeping up to date with tax codes in what must be 10s or 100s of thousands of jurisdictions then filing the appropriate paperwork and submitting the payments.  There's state, county and city level and even other entities like levy districts which can overlap the boundaries of the other levels.  If anyone can, Amazon can probably manage it, but you can't just target Amazon with a rule like this.  You'd be sinking a lot of smaller online retailers who can't manage all the insane complexity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>recommendations on a sale-level ; people who bought this also bought that , 57 \ % people on this page bought this item , the others went here , combo deals with books you viewed before , etc .
You 'd think they would be able to come up with a system for the taxes Not the same thing at all .
There 's no legal repercussions for bad recommendations , and the other features are only mildly clever algorithms .
Paying taxes requires understanding and then keeping up to date with tax codes in what must be 10s or 100s of thousands of jurisdictions then filing the appropriate paperwork and submitting the payments .
There 's state , county and city level and even other entities like levy districts which can overlap the boundaries of the other levels .
If anyone can , Amazon can probably manage it , but you ca n't just target Amazon with a rule like this .
You 'd be sinking a lot of smaller online retailers who ca n't manage all the insane complexity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>recommendations on a sale-level; people who bought this also bought that, 57\% people on this page bought this item, the others went here, combo deals with books you viewed before, etc.
You'd think they would be able to come up with a system for the taxes

Not the same thing at all.
There's no legal repercussions for bad recommendations, and the other features are only mildly clever algorithms.
Paying taxes requires understanding and then keeping up to date with tax codes in what must be 10s or 100s of thousands of jurisdictions then filing the appropriate paperwork and submitting the payments.
There's state, county and city level and even other entities like levy districts which can overlap the boundaries of the other levels.
If anyone can, Amazon can probably manage it, but you can't just target Amazon with a rule like this.
You'd be sinking a lot of smaller online retailers who can't manage all the insane complexity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30579634</id>
	<title>I applaud Amazon</title>
	<author>Retired Replicant</author>
	<datestamp>1262027340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Screw spendthrift state governments.  Instead of controlling state spending by paring down ridiculous state and local employee pensions, the first thing the MA state legislature and governor did was increase sales taxes by 25\%.  Not a very bright move in the middle of a recession when your state is right next door to sales-tax-free NH. No wonder that's where Amazon located their regional distribution center.  A great case example of how high state taxes kill off jobs and commerce, sending them to lower tax states instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw spendthrift state governments .
Instead of controlling state spending by paring down ridiculous state and local employee pensions , the first thing the MA state legislature and governor did was increase sales taxes by 25 \ % .
Not a very bright move in the middle of a recession when your state is right next door to sales-tax-free NH .
No wonder that 's where Amazon located their regional distribution center .
A great case example of how high state taxes kill off jobs and commerce , sending them to lower tax states instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw spendthrift state governments.
Instead of controlling state spending by paring down ridiculous state and local employee pensions, the first thing the MA state legislature and governor did was increase sales taxes by 25\%.
Not a very bright move in the middle of a recession when your state is right next door to sales-tax-free NH.
No wonder that's where Amazon located their regional distribution center.
A great case example of how high state taxes kill off jobs and commerce, sending them to lower tax states instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570488</id>
	<title>Re:Smaller companies?</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1262012160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It might not be an undue burden to Amazon, but what about smaller online companies? You could use software to manage the collecting of sales tax for everything but the real problem comes to sending off that money to every town, county, and state that collects sales tax. Someone buys something for a couple bucks and suddenly you have to send payments of a few cents to three different places. Even if you save it all up and send it bi-yearly you could be looking at thousands of separate payments based on how widespread your client base is.</p></div><p>Sounds like a business opportunity!  Or actually something that Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Amazon, and eBay can easily provide through their checkout services.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It might not be an undue burden to Amazon , but what about smaller online companies ?
You could use software to manage the collecting of sales tax for everything but the real problem comes to sending off that money to every town , county , and state that collects sales tax .
Someone buys something for a couple bucks and suddenly you have to send payments of a few cents to three different places .
Even if you save it all up and send it bi-yearly you could be looking at thousands of separate payments based on how widespread your client base is.Sounds like a business opportunity !
Or actually something that Google , Yahoo , Microsoft , Amazon , and eBay can easily provide through their checkout services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might not be an undue burden to Amazon, but what about smaller online companies?
You could use software to manage the collecting of sales tax for everything but the real problem comes to sending off that money to every town, county, and state that collects sales tax.
Someone buys something for a couple bucks and suddenly you have to send payments of a few cents to three different places.
Even if you save it all up and send it bi-yearly you could be looking at thousands of separate payments based on how widespread your client base is.Sounds like a business opportunity!
Or actually something that Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Amazon, and eBay can easily provide through their checkout services.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576042</id>
	<title>Re:Burden</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1261996680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, there is a real burden here. A "brick" store only has to deal with exactly ONE tax rate, which is the rate for their physical location.</p></div><p>So to compare the two, it would be more like the government requiring all brick and mortar stores in the USA to collect sales tax not on where the item was SOLD, but for where the customer lived.</p><p>The comparable burden that the store would be required to ask all customers where they live, have tax tables for the entire country to charge accordingly, and also be responsible for the money when the customer lies.</p><p>Only then would it be 'fair' and comparable to forcing an online store to do the same* thing.</p><p>* Admittedly Amazon probably does sell items out of more than one state, but most small online shops only SELL physical items out of one warehouse.</p><p>Why do brick and mortar stores only have to collect sales tax for the place the sale happened, but online stores must collect sales tax for the state the customer was physically in when making the sale with you in your state/city/county?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there is a real burden here .
A " brick " store only has to deal with exactly ONE tax rate , which is the rate for their physical location.So to compare the two , it would be more like the government requiring all brick and mortar stores in the USA to collect sales tax not on where the item was SOLD , but for where the customer lived.The comparable burden that the store would be required to ask all customers where they live , have tax tables for the entire country to charge accordingly , and also be responsible for the money when the customer lies.Only then would it be 'fair ' and comparable to forcing an online store to do the same * thing .
* Admittedly Amazon probably does sell items out of more than one state , but most small online shops only SELL physical items out of one warehouse.Why do brick and mortar stores only have to collect sales tax for the place the sale happened , but online stores must collect sales tax for the state the customer was physically in when making the sale with you in your state/city/county ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there is a real burden here.
A "brick" store only has to deal with exactly ONE tax rate, which is the rate for their physical location.So to compare the two, it would be more like the government requiring all brick and mortar stores in the USA to collect sales tax not on where the item was SOLD, but for where the customer lived.The comparable burden that the store would be required to ask all customers where they live, have tax tables for the entire country to charge accordingly, and also be responsible for the money when the customer lies.Only then would it be 'fair' and comparable to forcing an online store to do the same* thing.
* Admittedly Amazon probably does sell items out of more than one state, but most small online shops only SELL physical items out of one warehouse.Why do brick and mortar stores only have to collect sales tax for the place the sale happened, but online stores must collect sales tax for the state the customer was physically in when making the sale with you in your state/city/county?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569904</id>
	<title>You misunderstood something</title>
	<author>dreamchaser</author>
	<datestamp>1262006880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not Amazon that would be paying sales tax.  The buyer pays the tax.  Amazon just doesn't want to a) deal with administering separate tax rates and payments to multiple States and b) have it's perceived prices increase with the addition of tax.</p><p>The funny thing is in general I agree with your view on taxation; it's just that in this instance your argument doesn't fit the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not Amazon that would be paying sales tax .
The buyer pays the tax .
Amazon just does n't want to a ) deal with administering separate tax rates and payments to multiple States and b ) have it 's perceived prices increase with the addition of tax.The funny thing is in general I agree with your view on taxation ; it 's just that in this instance your argument does n't fit the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not Amazon that would be paying sales tax.
The buyer pays the tax.
Amazon just doesn't want to a) deal with administering separate tax rates and payments to multiple States and b) have it's perceived prices increase with the addition of tax.The funny thing is in general I agree with your view on taxation; it's just that in this instance your argument doesn't fit the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570518</id>
	<title>Re:Note the lack of mentioning all the other taxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262012400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a legal loophole. Internet sales *never* had a sales tax. It's not only Amazon that does this. If you force Amazon to do this, you force all etailers to do this and the amount of work required is ridiculous. It's not as easy as in the UK. We have state, city, even county level taxes in places. And they're all different from each other for different products. It's a logistical nightmare. Smaller etailers wouldn't be able to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a legal loophole .
Internet sales * never * had a sales tax .
It 's not only Amazon that does this .
If you force Amazon to do this , you force all etailers to do this and the amount of work required is ridiculous .
It 's not as easy as in the UK .
We have state , city , even county level taxes in places .
And they 're all different from each other for different products .
It 's a logistical nightmare .
Smaller etailers would n't be able to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a legal loophole.
Internet sales *never* had a sales tax.
It's not only Amazon that does this.
If you force Amazon to do this, you force all etailers to do this and the amount of work required is ridiculous.
It's not as easy as in the UK.
We have state, city, even county level taxes in places.
And they're all different from each other for different products.
It's a logistical nightmare.
Smaller etailers wouldn't be able to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30578790</id>
	<title>attacked by the MSM again</title>
	<author>damasterwc</author>
	<datestamp>1262017500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>agents of the foreign empire are declaring their intent to force more people to pay tax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>agents of the foreign empire are declaring their intent to force more people to pay tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>agents of the foreign empire are declaring their intent to force more people to pay tax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570182</id>
	<title>Surprised no one sees the opportunity.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262010120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are lots of comments here about how difficult it would be to charge tax based upon a persons physical location.</p><p>At first glance it doesn't seem to difficult. We've had these laws in place in Canada for a long, long time and so I'm used to them. That said, there are a lot of convincing reasons I've read in other posts about how much more complicated it is to tax people in the US than pretty much everywhere else in the world. Not only do you have Federal tax and State tax, but also country and municipal sales taxes, and varying taxes based upon item type (liquor vs tobacco vs books, etc).</p><p>So, I can understand someone saying that this is complicated for the smaller retailler.</p><p>What I don't understand is why no one is seeing the business opportunity here. It should be relatively simple (data intensive, but programatically simple) to code up some library of tax rates based upon zip code and the nature of the item purchased.</p><p>Once you've done the work once, it would be a matter of updating it quarterly with updates from each area's taxation department. Again, programatically simple, but data heavy.</p><p>I realize it sounds boring, but keep in mind that companies like Quicken have to do this every year for their taxation software.</p><p>It's software that could be very useful, simple to make, but tedious to update. Basically, no one will *want* to do this (so FOSS alternatives will be slim), but everyone has to have it. From what I've seen in the market, this basically translates to "buckets of money in my pockets".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are lots of comments here about how difficult it would be to charge tax based upon a persons physical location.At first glance it does n't seem to difficult .
We 've had these laws in place in Canada for a long , long time and so I 'm used to them .
That said , there are a lot of convincing reasons I 've read in other posts about how much more complicated it is to tax people in the US than pretty much everywhere else in the world .
Not only do you have Federal tax and State tax , but also country and municipal sales taxes , and varying taxes based upon item type ( liquor vs tobacco vs books , etc ) .So , I can understand someone saying that this is complicated for the smaller retailler.What I do n't understand is why no one is seeing the business opportunity here .
It should be relatively simple ( data intensive , but programatically simple ) to code up some library of tax rates based upon zip code and the nature of the item purchased.Once you 've done the work once , it would be a matter of updating it quarterly with updates from each area 's taxation department .
Again , programatically simple , but data heavy.I realize it sounds boring , but keep in mind that companies like Quicken have to do this every year for their taxation software.It 's software that could be very useful , simple to make , but tedious to update .
Basically , no one will * want * to do this ( so FOSS alternatives will be slim ) , but everyone has to have it .
From what I 've seen in the market , this basically translates to " buckets of money in my pockets " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are lots of comments here about how difficult it would be to charge tax based upon a persons physical location.At first glance it doesn't seem to difficult.
We've had these laws in place in Canada for a long, long time and so I'm used to them.
That said, there are a lot of convincing reasons I've read in other posts about how much more complicated it is to tax people in the US than pretty much everywhere else in the world.
Not only do you have Federal tax and State tax, but also country and municipal sales taxes, and varying taxes based upon item type (liquor vs tobacco vs books, etc).So, I can understand someone saying that this is complicated for the smaller retailler.What I don't understand is why no one is seeing the business opportunity here.
It should be relatively simple (data intensive, but programatically simple) to code up some library of tax rates based upon zip code and the nature of the item purchased.Once you've done the work once, it would be a matter of updating it quarterly with updates from each area's taxation department.
Again, programatically simple, but data heavy.I realize it sounds boring, but keep in mind that companies like Quicken have to do this every year for their taxation software.It's software that could be very useful, simple to make, but tedious to update.
Basically, no one will *want* to do this (so FOSS alternatives will be slim), but everyone has to have it.
From what I've seen in the market, this basically translates to "buckets of money in my pockets".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30572658</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>Trip6</author>
	<datestamp>1262023440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Web retailers charge close to or full retail prices for things without the overhead of brick and mortar storefronts or high priced commissioned salespeople.  The tax payment is a lookup table and electronic transfer.  Gee, they might have to hire a programmer or two to keep up.  Your argument falls in the "whaaah" category because online retailers are cleaning up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Web retailers charge close to or full retail prices for things without the overhead of brick and mortar storefronts or high priced commissioned salespeople .
The tax payment is a lookup table and electronic transfer .
Gee , they might have to hire a programmer or two to keep up .
Your argument falls in the " whaaah " category because online retailers are cleaning up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web retailers charge close to or full retail prices for things without the overhead of brick and mortar storefronts or high priced commissioned salespeople.
The tax payment is a lookup table and electronic transfer.
Gee, they might have to hire a programmer or two to keep up.
Your argument falls in the "whaaah" category because online retailers are cleaning up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571018</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the future.</title>
	<author>stdarg</author>
	<datestamp>1262015460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's the opposite in this case. The spirit of the sales tax law is that businesses help their communities by helping to collect sales tax.</p><p>If Amazon has an R&amp;D department in California, but they don't sell anything, why do they need to collect sales tax? But they get screwed by the letter of the law  since they have a business presence, even though it's unrelated to sales. So they have to resort to legal shenanigans to get back to what common sense says. They're not selling anything, so they don't collect sales tax.</p><p>I think to point out this foolishness, Amazon should lobby for the equivalent letter-of-the-law enforcement for brick and mortar stores. Barnes and Noble has presences in every state, so they need to ask every customer for their address so that they can collect the sales tax for that particular customer's home state. And of course they still have to collect the sales tax for the local state where the transaction takes place, I don't believe there's a legal exemption from that. Everybody gets their fair share!</p><p>I mean seriously, if my cousin Vinny is visiting me from New York, why can't Barnes and Noble go ahead and collect the necessary use tax/sales tax? The burden is exactly the same as for an online store, and it would preserve the online store's tax advantage since b&amp;m stores would be double-taxed (unless the customer is from a state with no sales tax).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's the opposite in this case .
The spirit of the sales tax law is that businesses help their communities by helping to collect sales tax.If Amazon has an R&amp;D department in California , but they do n't sell anything , why do they need to collect sales tax ?
But they get screwed by the letter of the law since they have a business presence , even though it 's unrelated to sales .
So they have to resort to legal shenanigans to get back to what common sense says .
They 're not selling anything , so they do n't collect sales tax.I think to point out this foolishness , Amazon should lobby for the equivalent letter-of-the-law enforcement for brick and mortar stores .
Barnes and Noble has presences in every state , so they need to ask every customer for their address so that they can collect the sales tax for that particular customer 's home state .
And of course they still have to collect the sales tax for the local state where the transaction takes place , I do n't believe there 's a legal exemption from that .
Everybody gets their fair share ! I mean seriously , if my cousin Vinny is visiting me from New York , why ca n't Barnes and Noble go ahead and collect the necessary use tax/sales tax ?
The burden is exactly the same as for an online store , and it would preserve the online store 's tax advantage since b&amp;m stores would be double-taxed ( unless the customer is from a state with no sales tax ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's the opposite in this case.
The spirit of the sales tax law is that businesses help their communities by helping to collect sales tax.If Amazon has an R&amp;D department in California, but they don't sell anything, why do they need to collect sales tax?
But they get screwed by the letter of the law  since they have a business presence, even though it's unrelated to sales.
So they have to resort to legal shenanigans to get back to what common sense says.
They're not selling anything, so they don't collect sales tax.I think to point out this foolishness, Amazon should lobby for the equivalent letter-of-the-law enforcement for brick and mortar stores.
Barnes and Noble has presences in every state, so they need to ask every customer for their address so that they can collect the sales tax for that particular customer's home state.
And of course they still have to collect the sales tax for the local state where the transaction takes place, I don't believe there's a legal exemption from that.
Everybody gets their fair share!I mean seriously, if my cousin Vinny is visiting me from New York, why can't Barnes and Noble go ahead and collect the necessary use tax/sales tax?
The burden is exactly the same as for an online store, and it would preserve the online store's tax advantage since b&amp;m stores would be double-taxed (unless the customer is from a state with no sales tax).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573402</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the future.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262026560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a direct consequence of the tax laws being so complicated that you can't get rid of the loopholes because there is no way to fully understand the law, including when you are writing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a direct consequence of the tax laws being so complicated that you ca n't get rid of the loopholes because there is no way to fully understand the law , including when you are writing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a direct consequence of the tax laws being so complicated that you can't get rid of the loopholes because there is no way to fully understand the law, including when you are writing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576526</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it be wonderful,</title>
	<author>jdkchem</author>
	<datestamp>1261999380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this even remotely interesting?  Before rambling on like a moron again you might actually acquire some knowledge of taxation as well as some level of common sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this even remotely interesting ?
Before rambling on like a moron again you might actually acquire some knowledge of taxation as well as some level of common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this even remotely interesting?
Before rambling on like a moron again you might actually acquire some knowledge of taxation as well as some level of common sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30572658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30577170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30575490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30575474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30579238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30572632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30577414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30572428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30575258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30577360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30572714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30577322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30579894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30577330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30575302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_28_119259_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30579238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30572428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30575302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30577414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30572714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30575490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30575258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30572658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30577170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30574606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30577360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30577330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30571524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30575474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30573392
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30572632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30570616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30579894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30576288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_28_119259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30569832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_28_119259.30577322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
