carlton_somes
-
Posts
14 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by carlton_somes
-
-
As I understand it, whether the buyer owed tax was never an issue; the tax was always due. The issue is whether merchants would be required to collect it from their customers and pass it on to the right state. If a merchant in Maine sells something to a buyer in California and that merchant has no operations in California, for example, if the merchant collects the tax from the customer it is difficult for the merchant to send that money to the California state government in Sacramento. That is because the merchant has no dealings whatsoever with the California government. The merchant wouldn't even know how much to charge because each California county has a different rate (as in most states). Due to this hardship, the federal government declined to force merchants to collect and remit sales taxes for customers in states where they had no operations. As a result, buyers are responsible for remitting the taxes themselves.
This newly proposed system seems to be a way to make it easier for a merchant in any state to calculate and remit the taxes to any state government. Using the newly proposed collection/payment system will be voluntary and if you buy something from an out-of-state merchant who does not choose to use it you will continue to be responsible to pay the taxes yourself directly to your state government.
It sounds like the thinking is that if a system comes into existence that makes this whole process easy for merchants then the federal government may require all merchants to use it. There is no federal requirement on merchants today, as I mentioned, because the process is considered too difficult. Without a federal requirement for merchants to collect and remit these taxes, Americans are obligated to pay them themselves. It is an honor system strengthened by the threat of potential prosecution.
None of this ever had anything to do with whether taxes were owed; they were always owed. The entire issue has always been solely about the mechanics of collection and remittance.
I hope this makes sense and I believe it is basically correct.
-
Just because the vendor doesn't collect tax doesn't mean you don't owe any. In most (all?) U.S. states, if the vendor does not collect the sales tax for the state you live in, you must fill out a form and send a check to your home state. In some states, when you file your annual state income tax form you are, by signing it, swearing that you paid all such taxes for items you had shipped to you. There are penalties for violations. Here in California the tax is called a "use" tax, which I think is fairly typical, and the tax is paid using these instructions and form: <a href="http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub79b.pdf">Tax Form</a> .
This new Streamlined Sales Tax Project does not cause anyone to owe more taxes, I believe, it just makes it easier for states to collect the taxes people already would owe. I suspect the current honor method for tax payments is not working very well for states.
-
Oops my picture of Trevor above is not a Leica photo. I found this thread in the Unified Forum View and thought it was the general W/NW forum. Just noticed it is the Leica forum. Sorry.
-
Trevor. Died in April 2004 at age 7 of an auto-immune disorder.<div>
</div>
-
<div></div>
-
Even though Alaska is bigger I believe over-sized objects are referred to as Texas-sized in America because Texans are regarded as liking things that are very large. They supposedly buy the most gigantic cars (I think that one is true), wear the biggest hats, serve enormous meals and the women are well known for having really big hair. So it is more the size of things within the state than the size of the state itself, if I am correct about this. New Yorkers are known for finding that type of excess to be distasteful, as I understand it, so a too-large anything will not be called a New York anything.
-
Sorry, <a href="http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_stylus.asp">here's the link.</a>
-
Given that this is the digital camera forum, I assume the question is about digital. I believe the Olympus Stylus Digital cameras are the only compact digitals that are weather-proof, so they will resist the elements they may be exposed to while mountain biking. I think they fit your criteria otherwise as well. <ahref="http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_stylus.asp">Here's a link.</a>
-
I don't think the above post about Olympus having a greater crop factor is exactly accurate. While the E-1 does have a sensor that is only half the size of 35mm film, there is actually no cropping involved. That is because the lenses for the E-1 provide an image circle that is no larger than it needs to be for the sensor. The effective focal length relative to 35mm is double, but not due to cropping.
-
-
By the way, that "protester" has been marching around town all day, every day, for years. When one senseless sign wears out he gets another equally senseless one. If there are TV cameras around, he's right there in front of them every time.
-
You may like the Konica Hexar autofocus (http://www.photo.net/equipment/point-and-shoot/konica-hexar). It is not that small and light (it is smaller, lighter and less expensive than the Contax G1/2) but it has a great, fast lens and can be used like a point & shoot when desired. It works very well for me.
-
Putting aside the question whether there may be a sufficient market
for such a device, would a dedicated black & white sensor have any
technical advantages over a color sensor for B&W photography? I
imagine that it would but do not really know. Has any manufacturer
ever considered developing one? Just curious. Thanks in advance
for your responses.
LG Flatron monitor?
in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing
Posted