Interesting.....Perry whips out his veto pen.....

[Jamisjockey]

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9NIJ1B00.htm

Interent tax bill, vetoed.  Good for Amazon. Good for buyers who want to avoid sales tax.  Not good for physical businesses who lose out in competition with online retailers not collecting sales tax.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Did-you-get-my-text-about-the-Perry-veto-1430464.php

Driving-while-texting, vetoed.  Perry's words?
“government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults.”

Statists on both sides of the aisle seem to have thier underwear twisted over that one.  Good.

[Fly320s]

I approve of both vetos.

[Ben]

I do too.

I was just reading an article about the Internet tax. It's interesting that Walmart, Target, and other large brick and mortar companies are for the tax. Because it wasn't that long ago that mom and pops were complaining about the big boxes putting them out of business. To which the big boxes responded that they were simply creating a more efficient business model based on changing technologies and transportation.

So I must ask, isn't a more efficient business model based on technology exactly what Amazon et al. are doing?

[roo_ster]

Two thumbs up.

[AZRedhawk44]

I do too.

I was just reading an article about the Internet tax. It's interesting that Walmart, Target, and other large brick and mortar companies are for the tax. Because it wasn't that long ago that mom and pops were complaining about the big boxes putting them out of business. To which the big boxes responded that they were simply creating a more efficient business model based on changing technologies and transportation.

So I must ask, isn't a more efficient business model based on technology exactly what Amazon et al. are doing?

Walmart/Target/etc are for the tax, because they have brick-and-mortar presences in the various States with sales taxes, and their online outlets are therefore compelled to charge sales tax.  So, they sit in the same camp as the "mom and pop" stores.

I think our stoopid "betters" are going to drive the economy into the toilet longer-term by implementing online sales taxes somehow, and by eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction.  This hunt for revenue is going to end up hurting all of us, a lot.

The amount of time spent trying to lobby for more taxes, or the elimination of "tax subsidies" is counter productive to actually cutting government spending.  I can't fault businesses at all for not wanting to make investments and take risks when you can't tell if this government (these governments?) are going to be defaulting left and right due to stoopid fiscal policy.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Happy with both. I guess his (likely) run for president is having some positives after all. 

[Ben]

Walmart/Target/etc are for the tax, because they have brick-and-mortar presences in the various States with sales taxes, and their online outlets are therefore compelled to charge sales tax.  So, they sit in the same camp as the "mom and pop" stores.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. It's kinda hypocritical of them to complain and align themselves with mom and pop when they were using generally the same argument at one time that Internet retailers are using now.

The tax is also coming up for a vote in CA. I expect exactly the opposite of what happened in TX. I think CA lawmakers really believe Amazon would never pull out of CA. I really believe that they will... in a heartbeat.

[Balog]

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. It's kinda hypocritical of them to complain and align themselves with mom and pop when they were using generally the same argument at one time that Internet retailers are using now.

The tax is also coming up for a vote in CA. I expect exactly the opposite of what happened in TX. I think CA lawmakers really believe Amazon would never pull out of CA. I really believe that they will... in a heartbeat.

I doubt they would, but I'd love it if they did.

Also, so nice to see a thread about a poli-critter "whipping it out" that is positive...

[Ben]

I doubt they would, but I'd love it if they did.

Also, so nice to see a thread about a poli-critter "whipping it out" that is positive...

If they did, it actually wouldn't be that much of a pain for them. They would basically be giving up the CA resident Amazon resellers or whatever they're called. Not that there's not a lot of them in CA, but there's a lot more of them in the combined other 49 states. There would definitely be some hit to the quantity of available merchandise on Amazon, but I'm willing to bet they could "reroute" their supplies.

Interesting to note in the article I read that the CA population is one of (if not the) largest buying populations on Amazon. Tells you something about CA taxes and their restrictiveness to business. It tells me that CA wouldn't be getting all those tax revenues they'd hoped for, because people will still find ways around it. No one I know reports internet merchandise on their taxes. I think it would cost CA more trying to track people down to pay than whatever money they could actually collect, which would be nowhere near the $200mil plus they claim they "lose" to Amazon.

[RaspberrySurprise]

I can see Cali passing the tax law, Amazon pulling out from Cali, and then the state trying to ban buying from Amazon or some such shenanigans.

[longeyes]

Amazon is not going to pull out of California, folks.  And the people here will just pay the tax. 

[Regolith]

Amazon is not going to pull out of California, folks.  And the people here will just pay the tax. 

They threatened to pull out of Texas if they passed the bill.  They've done the same for every other state that has tried the same thing.  I don't see why they'd treat Cali any differently.

[Scout26]

Amazon pulled out of Illinois and dumped all their Illinois resellers, about 2 seconds after Gov "3County" Quinn signed the Internet sales tax bill. 

[HankB]

Agree with the veto of the Internet tax.

Disagree with the veto of the texting-while-driving ban . . . all too often, the "close calls" I've had with narrowly-avoided collisions involve some %$#@&%! moron talking on or fiddling with his $&##@! cell phone.

[Fly320s]

Agree with the veto of the Internet tax.

Disagree with the veto of the texting-while-driving ban . . . all too often, the "close calls" I've had with narrowly-avoided collisions involve some %$#@&%! moron talking on or fiddling with his $&##@! cell phone.

Yes, but Perry nailed it in his reasoning: “government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults.”

If you approve of banning texting, then you will have to approve of banning talking on the phone while driving, tuning the radio, eating, talking with passengers, yelling at your kids, fiddling with the GPS, and all of the other distractions. 

[makattak]

Yes, but Perry nailed it in his reasoning: “government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults.”

If you approve of banning texting, then you will have to approve of banning talking on the phone while driving, tuning the radio, eating, talking with passengers, yelling at your kids, fiddling with the GPS, and all of the other distractions. 

Yep. There have not been an increase in traffic incidents caused by "distracted drving" since people have begun texting.

It seems people have simply altered what is distracting them in the car. If you stop them from texting, the poor drivers will get distracted by something instead. And you will have given more control to government in return for... what?

[Jamisjockey]

Agree with the veto of the Internet tax.

Disagree with the veto of the texting-while-driving ban . . . all too often, the "close calls" I've had with narrowly-avoided collisions involve some %$#@&%! moron talking on or fiddling with his $&##@! cell phone.

fly320's took the words out of my mouth.

Yes, but Perry nailed it in his reasoning: “government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults.”

If you approve of banning texting, then you will have to approve of banning talking on the phone while driving, tuning the radio, eating, talking with passengers, yelling at your kids, fiddling with the GPS, and all of the other distractions. 

The nanny state has run amok.  With one pen stroke, Governor Perry said "no further". 
The more we're treated like children, the more we act like children.  Just sayin.

[Ben]

For the past few years, 90% of the time that I've had a close call, or seen someone in front of me driving erratically (weaving, going from 65 to 45, etc.) it's been because the other driver was doing something on their cell phone. That includes hands free, because I see people with headsets in their ear or else looking like they're talking to themselves also being erratic -- especially the speed up - slow down thing.

So, yeah they drive me absolutely nuts and shouldn't be on the road. As much as I always say, "There oughta be a law" whenever it happens, I have a problem, as stated above, about .gov micromanaging yet one more aspect of our lives.

[Tallpine]

If you approve of banning texting, then you will have to approve of banning talking on the phone while driving, tuning the radio, eating, talking with passengers, yelling at your kids, fiddling with the GPS, and all of the other distractions. 

Looking at the speedometer 

[longeyes]

But what I want to know is...is Perry a protege' of Karl Rove?

[HankB]

. . . If you approve of banning texting, then you will have to approve of banning talking on the phone while driving, tuning the radio, eating, talking with passengers, yelling at your kids, fiddling with the GPS, and all of the other distractions. 

"Distracted driving" has been an offense for a long time, but cell phones seem to raise the level of distraction to a whole new level over talking with passengers or adjusting the radio.

We may as well just let people set up a TV screen on their dashboard or (like some gangstas have done) replace the airbag in the steering wheel with a small DVD player so they can watch Gone in 60 Seconds while driving down the road . . .

[makattak]

"Distracted driving" has been an offense for a long time, but cell phones seem to raise the level of distraction to a whole new level over talking with passengers or adjusting the radio.

We may as well just let people set up a TV screen on their dashboard or (like some gangstas have done) replace the airbag in the steering wheel with a small DVD player so they can watch Gone in 60 Seconds while driving down the road . . .

There has not been an increase in traffic incidents caused by "distracted drving" since people have begun texting.

It seems people have simply altered what is distracting them in the car. If you stop them from texting, the poor drivers will get distracted by something instead. And you will have given more control to government in return for... what?

[KD5NRH]

"Distracted driving" has been an offense for a long time,

Not in a lot of states, TX included.  If it doesn't rise to the level of reckless driving (class B misdemeanor, and requires driving with "wilful or wanton disregard" for safety - I'll dig up the case law that sets a requirement for malice to meet the "wilful or wanton" standard later) then it's not an offense.

I tried to get it to happen locally, but too many of the council members admitted to doing the sort of things that would get them ticketed under a blanket "distracted driving" ordinance.  It was voted down 6-2 in spite of public support IIRC.

[seeker_two]

Not in a lot of states, TX included.  If it doesn't rise to the level of reckless driving (class B misdemeanor, and requires driving with "wilful or wanton disregard" for safety - I'll dig up the case law that sets a requirement for malice to meet the "wilful or wanton" standard later) then it's not an offense.

Texas already has a law to address these things....no need for any new ones....

[KD5NRH]

Texas already has a law to address these things....no need for any new ones....

What law?