It's wikipedia, and we all know thats accurate.

I am going to go there and input my own stats to make Murtha look worse than he already does. Come on.

Paytonlives wrote:

Re/MaxGriz wrote:Here's what bugs me about what we're doing in Iraq right now;

80% of its citizens don't want us there
45% of its citizens feel its ok to attack Americans

Of course then there's the other side;

1. We don't pay our troops enough.

2. We don't protect our troops well enough or have enough armor on their vehicles

3. The Bush administration ignored the actual amount of time/money it would take to get Iraq's new army battle ready and now there's only 1 battalion that is capable of independent fighting

4. It appears that some of the prisioners over there were tortured, which in my opnion, doesn't help "win over the people."

Remax please stop saying 80% want us out. Where Are the facts. EVERY report Ive seen, from Iraqies and our soldier there say the WANT US THERE!!!!

Please post a link to a REAL website that shows anything near 80%.

I would think that 80 percent downplays the number that want Americans out. I'd think it would be closer to 99 percent. The question is when the US gets out. If the pollster just asked people: "Do you want to see the US out of Iraq?", well, that's a dumb and meaningless question, that leads to a dumb and meaningless poll result.

I would bet only 15-20% really want us out. We are good for business.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I would bet only 15-20% really want us out. We are good for business.

LMAO. They're not capitalists, Alpha. Islamic fundamentalists don't give a rats ass about business. They are Fascists. Making them into Fascists that vote isn't going to change that.

grizonbob wrote:

Bronco wrote:Wow Dem's hat want a new Tax...I'm shocked.

Most states that started with a 3% tax are now 7% and 8%...You can't let the bastards in your wallet...once there it's easy to say " I know we said it would never go up, but this is an emergency...

That's definitely a problem in many states, though MT did pass a constitutional amendment a few years back that limits any future sales tax to 4 percent. Of course, that constitutional limit could always be changed, but it isn't easy.

BTW, BAC, what is Qull v.? some court ruling that dictates tax policy?

Quill was the Supreme Court case that held that states were allowed to assess sales or use tax on out-of-state companies that didn't have a physical presence in their state. Quill is/was a mail order catalog, so they were selling into North Dakota without having a physical presence there, so they didn't have to charge sales tax. The SC holding was at least partially based on the commerce clause, which holds that only Congress can pass laws regulating interstate commerce, and that N. Dakota didn't have the authority to do so.

Work is underway to eventually have Congress pass some laws to change that underlying tenet of sales tax nexus, and it will probalby happen sometime in the next couple years.

Bronco: I know it is easy to go the "dems" and "new taxes" route, but we all know that isn't the real issue here. MT needs to get away from the high income tax and high property tax scheme it currently has, which is very bad for attracting business (unless one's ideal business is retail sales, which shouldn't be the case because it creates very few good jobs). If MT had a sales tax (which could/would be capped), then it could shift the burden from the income and property taxes, finally start taxing the tourist dollars that come into the state, and make it easier for companies to create good jobs in MT.

Yes, the sales tax rate COULD go up. But that's not exactly a compelling argument not to have one. MT already has income and property taxes, which COULD also go up at any time as well.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

grizonbob wrote:

Bronco wrote:Wow Dem's hat want a new Tax...I'm shocked.

Most states that started with a 3% tax are now 7% and 8%...You can't let the bastards in your wallet...once there it's easy to say " I know we said it would never go up, but this is an emergency...

That's definitely a problem in many states, though MT did pass a constitutional amendment a few years back that limits any future sales tax to 4 percent. Of course, that constitutional limit could always be changed, but it isn't easy.

BTW, BAC, what is Qull v.? some court ruling that dictates tax policy?

Quill was the Supreme Court case that held that states were allowed to assess sales or use tax on out-of-state companies that didn't have a physical presence in their state. Quill is/was a mail order catalog, so they were selling into North Dakota without having a physical presence there, so they didn't have to charge sales tax. The SC holding was at least partially based on the commerce clause, which holds that only Congress can pass laws regulating interstate commerce, and that N. Dakota didn't have the authority to do so.

Work is underway to eventually have Congress pass some laws to change that underlying tenet of sales tax nexus, and it will probalby happen sometime in the next couple years.

Bronco: I know it is easy to go the "dems" and "new taxes" route, but we all know that isn't the real issue here. MT needs to get away from the high income tax and high property tax scheme it currently has, which is very bad for attracting business (unless one's ideal business is retail sales, which shouldn't be the case because it creates very few good jobs). If MT had a sales tax (which could/would be capped), then it could shift the burden from the income and property taxes, finally start taxing the tourist dollars that come into the state, and make it easier for companies to create good jobs in MT.

Yes, the sales tax rate COULD go up. But that's not exactly a compelling argument not to have one. MT already has income and property taxes, which COULD also go up at any time as well.

thanks for that info on Quill, though I'm a little confused. You say the Supreme Court held that states could assess sales or use tax on out-of-state companies that didn't have a physical presence in their state. But you also said that "The SC holding was at least partially based on the commerce clause, which holds that only Congress can pass laws regulating interstate commerce, and that N. Dakota didn't have the authority to do so." Maybe I'm being dense here, but the two sentences seem to conflict. Did the court say states could assess sales taxes against out-of-state firms, or that they could not under the commerce clause? BTW, what level is the Cal. sales tax now?

I must have left out a "not" in my previous post in an important place ... that happens way too often. Sorry for the confusion.

States can not assess tax on out-of-state companies that do not have a physical presence in their state per the Quill holding. This is what allows Amazon to sell tax-free into most states, and is a really big deal within the online sales area. I know of companies that have set up special sales subsidiaries that have a very small geographic footprint to sell via online around the country specifically to avoid being responsible for sales/use tax collection and remitance, thus giving them a competitive advantage over the local companies.

Technically, if you live in a state with a sales/use tax in place, and you buy something tax-free from another state (either travelled there or bought via internet/catalog, etc.) you are SUPPOSED to remit "use tax" to the state in the same amount as the sales tax that would otherwise have been paid. This is generally done on the income tax return.

Needless to say, this is very difficult to audit, and very easy to evade, so hardly anybody volunteers to pay this tax. This is another reason the states are working to close up this loophole by getting enough states on board to have Congress pass a bill that gets rid of the Quill tests and allows states to assess tax on companies selling into their state, regardless of physical presence.

Sorry for taking the thread off course.....

Sorry, forgot to answer the other question. I think the CA sales tax rate is at about 6.25%. There is also county and city level taxes (for those jurisdictions that choose to impose them). The combined state, county and city taxes in San Francisco add up to 8.5%. Considering how many tourists came through this city, that's a lot of tax revenue coming from non-locals (as opposed to having higher property and/or income taxes).

Bay Area Cat wrote:Sorry, forgot to answer the other question. I think the CA sales tax rate is at about 6.25%. There is also county and city level taxes (for those jurisdictions that choose to impose them). The combined state, county and city taxes in San Francisco add up to 8.5%. Considering how many tourists came through this city, that's a lot of tax revenue coming from non-locals (as opposed to having higher property and/or income taxes).

Property taxes must be outlandishly high there, given the astronomical property values....

They actually have a pretty messed up law (voted on by the public, which almost always ends up leading to bad policy decisions involving lots of tax cuts and lots of spending hikes, all of the feel-good variety) whereby property tax values are based on purchase price as opposed to assessed value.

As a result, property taxes are quite low (aren't based on appreciated value). This might sound good on the surface (outside of lost revenue for the state), but the real impact of it is that people are discouraged from selling their homes and buying new ones (as that would lead to a step-up in their tax basis), so homes don't turn over, people end up living in huge houses after they retire that they no longer need (but can't afford to change houses), and the overall supply of houses on the market is artificially reduced (leading to artificially high house prices). It's another example of the unintended consequencs that come with many laws, but when it goes to a public vote, few people think that far ahead.

Bay Area Cat wrote:They actually have a pretty messed up law (voted on by the public, which almost always ends up leading to bad policy decisions involving lots of tax cuts and lots of spending hikes, all of the feel-good variety) whereby property tax values are based on purchase price as opposed to assessed value.

As a result, property taxes are quite low (aren't based on appreciated value). This might sound good on the surface (outside of lost revenue for the state), but the real impact of it is that people are discouraged from selling their homes and buying new ones (as that would lead to a step-up in their tax basis), so homes don't turn over, people end up living in huge houses after they retire that they no longer need (but can't afford to change houses), and the overall supply of houses on the market is artificially reduced (leading to artificially high house prices). It's another example of the unintended consequencs that come with many laws, but when it goes to a public vote, few people think that far ahead.

That's an interesting dilemma. There's been a lot of squawking in MT about property taxes, particularly in the west side of the state, as so many folks are moving into MT and buying places and pushing up property values. That leads to higher assessments and much higher taxes for some folks who have lived in their places for years. My mother is one of those kinds of folks--fixed income, but lives on a place on a lake, and her taxes are zooming. There's been talk of going to taxes based on purchase price, but nothing has happened so far, and it is interesting to hear how that's had an adverse effect there. Property taxes seem like they are about the most difficult to deal with in a fair way; values are too subjective.