United We Stand - uwsboard.com

HooFighter wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HooFighter wrote:From the guy who was so concerned about illegal wiretapping.

I expect the usual responses
"Winning!"
"Excellent trolling!"
"MAGA!"
"Emails!"

Because recording your own conversations is exactly the same thing.

Good point. Nothing could ever go wrong doing that.

And now I'm back to speculating why Trump goes to his own properties so often. It isn't like the deep-state leftists would be bugging him, is it? ...oh. Wait...

RiverguyVT wrote:

HooFighter wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HooFighter wrote:From the guy who was so concerned about illegal wiretapping.

I expect the usual responses
"Winning!"
"Excellent trolling!"
"MAGA!"
"Emails!"

Because recording your own conversations is exactly the same thing.

Good point. Nothing could ever go wrong doing that.

And now I'm back to speculating why Trump goes to his own properties so often. It isn't like the deep-state leftists would be bugging him, is it? ...oh. Wait...

Not only have they been wiretapping him, Trump is also outing Comey as a leaker. Notice how everyone was surprised by the firing? Who didn't they tell this time? Comey. Reince Priebus is another not told and so no leaks.

RiverguyVT wrote:

HooFighter wrote:From the guy who was so concerned about illegal wiretapping.

I expect the usual responses
"Winning!"
"Excellent trolling!"
"MAGA!"
"Emails!"

LOL! Wow. Dude is totally a nut job. BUT... that sounds like a threat. Classic ambiguous trump. Is he saying he taped, or is he saying Comey better not have taped...?

Admittedly, there's been a lot of shadenfreude on my part. I'm enjoying watching the left wing apparatchik being dismantled. Trump has exceeded expectations in that regard.

Eff Comey & the entrenched deep-state leftists.

It is going to be a fun 4 years.

"Tapes" is in quotation marks. In Trump speak that would mean he doesn't actually mean tapes or recordings or anything a sane person would think that words means. What I'm guessing he actually means:

An artist rendering of what his conversation looked like with Comey with a speech bubble over Comey's head that says "You are totally innocent and are a great president. The greatest. You should fire me."

Cpt Jagdish wrote:

RiverguyVT wrote:

HooFighter wrote:From the guy who was so concerned about illegal wiretapping.

I expect the usual responses
"Winning!"
"Excellent trolling!"
"MAGA!"
"Emails!"

LOL! Wow. Dude is totally a nut job. BUT... that sounds like a threat. Classic ambiguous trump. Is he saying he taped, or is he saying Comey better not have taped...?

Admittedly, there's been a lot of shadenfreude on my part. I'm enjoying watching the left wing apparatchik being dismantled. Trump has exceeded expectations in that regard.

Eff Comey & the entrenched deep-state leftists.

It is going to be a fun 4 years.

"Tapes" is in quotation marks. In Trump speak that would mean he doesn't actually mean tapes or recordings or anything a sane person would think that words means. What I'm guessing he actually means:

An artist rendering of what his conversation looked like with Comey with a speech bubble over Comey's head that says "You are totally innocent and are a great president. The greatest. You should fire me."

LOL. Good take (funny!)

Still.. you raise a good point. If Comey had recorded their conversations, and was found out, leftists would mock trump for having said 'tape' when the recording was digital and not analog.

Cpt Jagdish wrote:

RiverguyVT wrote:

HooFighter wrote:From the guy who was so concerned about illegal wiretapping.

I expect the usual responses
"Winning!"
"Excellent trolling!"
"MAGA!"
"Emails!"

LOL! Wow. Dude is totally a nut job. BUT... that sounds like a threat. Classic ambiguous trump. Is he saying he taped, or is he saying Comey better not have taped...?

Admittedly, there's been a lot of shadenfreude on my part. I'm enjoying watching the left wing apparatchik being dismantled. Trump has exceeded expectations in that regard.

Eff Comey & the entrenched deep-state leftists.

It is going to be a fun 4 years.

"Tapes" is in quotation marks. In Trump speak that would mean he doesn't actually mean tapes or recordings or anything a sane person would think that words means. What I'm guessing he actually means:

An artist rendering of what his conversation looked like with Comey with a speech bubble over Comey's head that says "You are totally innocent and are a great president. The greatest. You should fire me."

comey should be thrilled, if Thunder thighs had won she would have shirt canned his butt about 1 second after taking the oath. He got more paychecks with Trump in the WH

HooFighter wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HooFighter wrote:From the guy who was so concerned about illegal wiretapping.

I expect the usual responses
"Winning!"
"Excellent trolling!"
"MAGA!"
"Emails!"

Because recording your own conversations is exactly the same thing.

Good point. Nothing could ever go wrong doing that.

Umm,.....so what?

Anyone care to translate this gem? I assume this is some sort of veiled threat against the Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post.

HooFighter wrote:Anyone care to translate this gem? I assume this is some sort of veiled threat against the Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post.

The answer is written in invisible urine on the sheets of the Moscow Ritz. Get out your decoder ring.

On a serious note, I don't understand it either. I assume all of Trump's angry tweets occur during his morning Obama. Maybe he was passing a giant well done steak turd when he wrote that.

USN_Hokie wrote:On a serious note, I don't understand it either. I assume all of Trump's angry tweets occur during his morning Obama. Maybe he was passing a giant well done steak turd when he wrote that.

It sounds to me like he is threatening to stick the IRS on a political enemy. I seem to recall everyone here being quite upset about something that was perceived as similar a few years ago.

HooFighter wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:On a serious note, I don't understand it either. I assume all of Trump's angry tweets occur during his morning Obama. Maybe he was passing a giant well done steak turd when he wrote that.

It sounds to me like he is threatening to stick the IRS on a political enemy. I seem to recall everyone here being quite upset about something that was perceived as similar a few years ago.

Stick'm?

HooFighter wrote:Anyone care to translate this gem? I assume this is some sort of veiled threat against the Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post.

IIRC, he said Bezos was a tax dodger during the primary

HokieJoe wrote:

HooFighter wrote:Anyone care to translate this gem? I assume this is some sort of veiled threat against the Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post.

IIRC, he said Bezos was a tax dodger during the primary

According to Trump that would make him smart.

HooFighter wrote:

HokieJoe wrote:

HooFighter wrote:Anyone care to translate this gem? I assume this is some sort of veiled threat against the Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post.

IIRC, he said Bezos was a tax dodger during the primary

According to Trump that would make him smart.

awesome guy wrote:

HooFighter wrote:Anyone care to translate this gem? I assume this is some sort of veiled threat against the Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post.

He's just mad at this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... c51cfabc29

Major Kong wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

LOL. Looks like the ole texting slam on brakes and dive under car in front of you damage too.

USN_Hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

[emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38]

LOL. Looks like the ole texting slam on brakes and dive under car in front of you damage too.

Could be Hoof ranting online about that Trump, damn him!

HooFighter wrote:Anyone care to translate this gem? I assume this is some sort of veiled threat against the Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post.

It reads like an insinuation that Amazon isn't collecting sales taxes they should be? I can't think of any other “internet tax”. Of course sales/use taxes vary from state to state. There is no such thing as an “internet tax”. When you buy something — whether from a brick and mortar or in cyberspace — you, the buyer, are responsible for paying the sales tax. Most if the time the seller will collect the sales tax from you and remit it on your behalf to the state, but many internet vendors do not bother to collect sales tax on items they have to ship out of state. If you buy something and the receipt does not indicate you were charged sales tax, you are responsible for reporting it and paying use tax to your state.

And recently states have taken to adding a line for use tax to your state income tax return, which you are required to sign under penalty of perjury that you are filing an accurate return. If you check the box indicating no use tax is due and the state later finds you bought a bunch of stuff on the internet without paying sales tax, they will be able to nail your ass to the wall, if they choose to do so.

Hokie CPA wrote:

HooFighter wrote:Anyone care to translate this gem? I assume this is some sort of veiled threat against the Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post.

It reads like an insinuation that Amazon isn't collecting sales taxes they should be? I can't think of any other “internet tax”. Of course sales/use taxes vary from state to state. There is no such thing as an “internet tax”. When you buy something — whether from a brick and mortar or in cyberspace — you, the buyer, are responsible for paying the sales tax. Most if the time the seller will collect the sales tax from you and remit it on your behalf to the state, but many internet vendors do not bother to collect sales tax on items they have to ship out of state. If you buy something and the receipt does not indicate you were charged sales tax, you are responsible for reporting it and paying use tax to your state.

And recently states have taken to adding a line for use tax to your state income tax return, which you are required to sign under penalty of perjury that you are filing an accurate return. If you check the box indicating no use tax is due and the state later finds you bought a bunch of stuff on the internet without paying sales tax, they will be able to nail your ass to the wall, if they choose to do so.

So why shouldn't internet retailers be required to collect sales tax? Large retailers work in multiple states and set up their POS to accommodate each. Why can't online retailers do the same? It would be very easy to do.

Oh, I know why. Because it would then make their products look more expensive and more in line with brick and mortar competitors. That and the fact that their lobby has lined the pockets of state and federal legislators.

133743Hokie wrote:

Hokie CPA wrote:

HooFighter wrote:Anyone care to translate this gem? I assume this is some sort of veiled threat against the Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post.

It reads like an insinuation that Amazon isn't collecting sales taxes they should be? I can't think of any other “internet tax”. Of course sales/use taxes vary from state to state. There is no such thing as an “internet tax”. When you buy something — whether from a brick and mortar or in cyberspace — you, the buyer, are responsible for paying the sales tax. Most if the time the seller will collect the sales tax from you and remit it on your behalf to the state, but many internet vendors do not bother to collect sales tax on items they have to ship out of state. If you buy something and the receipt does not indicate you were charged sales tax, you are responsible for reporting it and paying use tax to your state.

And recently states have taken to adding a line for use tax to your state income tax return, which you are required to sign under penalty of perjury that you are filing an accurate return. If you check the box indicating no use tax is due and the state later finds you bought a bunch of stuff on the internet without paying sales tax, they will be able to nail your ass to the wall, if they choose to do so.

So why shouldn't internet retailers be required to collect sales tax? Large retailers work in multiple states and set up their POS to accommodate each. Why can't online retailers do the same? It would be very easy to do.

Oh, I know why. Because it would then make their products look more expensive and more in line with brick and mortar competitors. That and the fact that their lobby has lined the pockets of state and federal legislators.

Why does it matter? The buyer is responsible for paying the tax, whether they pay it to the seller or the state. They always have been — and that part is key. The use tax is nothing new. It's been a thing for decades, since way before the advent of the internet. Sellers who have no employees or fixed assets (stores, distribution centers, call centers, etc.) within a state are not required to collect sales tax. It's just the way it is. Always has been. Because states have no recourse or ability to enforce a requirement of those vendors to collect sales tax.

Bottom line is, the buyer has always been responsible for paying sales/use tax, regardless of whether the seller collected it.

Low IQ Mika... Lol.
OMG. LMAO.

Hokie CPA wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

Hokie CPA wrote:

HooFighter wrote:Anyone care to translate this gem? I assume this is some sort of veiled threat against the Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post.

It reads like an insinuation that Amazon isn't collecting sales taxes they should be? I can't think of any other “internet tax”. Of course sales/use taxes vary from state to state. There is no such thing as an “internet tax”. When you buy something — whether from a brick and mortar or in cyberspace — you, the buyer, are responsible for paying the sales tax. Most if the time the seller will collect the sales tax from you and remit it on your behalf to the state, but many internet vendors do not bother to collect sales tax on items they have to ship out of state. If you buy something and the receipt does not indicate you were charged sales tax, you are responsible for reporting it and paying use tax to your state.

And recently states have taken to adding a line for use tax to your state income tax return, which you are required to sign under penalty of perjury that you are filing an accurate return. If you check the box indicating no use tax is due and the state later finds you bought a bunch of stuff on the internet without paying sales tax, they will be able to nail your ass to the wall, if they choose to do so.

So why shouldn't internet retailers be required to collect sales tax? Large retailers work in multiple states and set up their POS to accommodate each. Why can't online retailers do the same? It would be very easy to do.

Oh, I know why. Because it would then make their products look more expensive and more in line with brick and mortar competitors. That and the fact that their lobby has lined the pockets of state and federal legislators.

Why does it matter? The buyer is responsible for paying the tax, whether they pay it to the seller or the state. They always have been — and that part is key. The use tax is nothing new. It's been a thing for decades, since way before the advent of the internet. Sellers who have no employees or fixed assets (stores, distribution centers, call centers, etc.) within a state are not required to collect sales tax. It's just the way it is. Always has been. Because states have no recourse or ability to enforce a requirement of those vendors to collect sales tax.

Bottom line is, the buyer has always been responsible for paying sales/use tax, regardless of whether the seller collected it.

So why are there laws requiring brick and mortar businesses to collect sales taxes and remit them to the state/locality? Why the different treatment? We both know why.

133743Hokie wrote:

Hokie CPA wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

Hokie CPA wrote:

HooFighter wrote:Anyone care to translate this gem? I assume this is some sort of veiled threat against the Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post.

It reads like an insinuation that Amazon isn't collecting sales taxes they should be? I can't think of any other “internet tax”. Of course sales/use taxes vary from state to state. There is no such thing as an “internet tax”. When you buy something — whether from a brick and mortar or in cyberspace — you, the buyer, are responsible for paying the sales tax. Most if the time the seller will collect the sales tax from you and remit it on your behalf to the state, but many internet vendors do not bother to collect sales tax on items they have to ship out of state. If you buy something and the receipt does not indicate you were charged sales tax, you are responsible for reporting it and paying use tax to your state.

And recently states have taken to adding a line for use tax to your state income tax return, which you are required to sign under penalty of perjury that you are filing an accurate return. If you check the box indicating no use tax is due and the state later finds you bought a bunch of stuff on the internet without paying sales tax, they will be able to nail your ass to the wall, if they choose to do so.

So why shouldn't internet retailers be required to collect sales tax? Large retailers work in multiple states and set up their POS to accommodate each. Why can't online retailers do the same? It would be very easy to do.

Oh, I know why. Because it would then make their products look more expensive and more in line with brick and mortar competitors. That and the fact that their lobby has lined the pockets of state and federal legislators.

Why does it matter? The buyer is responsible for paying the tax, whether they pay it to the seller or the state. They always have been — and that part is key. The use tax is nothing new. It's been a thing for decades, since way before the advent of the internet. Sellers who have no employees or fixed assets (stores, distribution centers, call centers, etc.) within a state are not required to collect sales tax. It's just the way it is. Always has been. Because states have no recourse or ability to enforce a requirement of those vendors to collect sales tax.

Bottom line is, the buyer has always been responsible for paying sales/use tax, regardless of whether the seller collected it.

So why are there laws requiring brick and mortar businesses to collect sales taxes and remit them to the state/locality? Why the different treatment? We both know why.

Because the state can put a lien on brick and mortar property... it's easier to collect. Also, the brick and mortar typically only has the one state. Internet sales can touch all 50 and the filing requirements would be absolutely nuts. Keeping track of sales tax would become a full time job. For big outfit like Amazon, they have the ability to do it for relative low cost. For smaller retailers, it's cost prohibitive. That's why.

We want the internet to represent the best parts of capitalism — the closest thing left to a truly free market — and that's not possible if you make prohibitive requirements of the seller. In the end, paying these taxes has always been the buyer's responsibility, so let the buyer take care if it. He can do so by writing a single number on his state tax return each year. It doesn't get any easier than that.

USN_Hokie wrote:Low IQ Mika... Lol.

OMG. LMAO.

WOAH.....

Melania sure is doing a great job on her cyberbullying task force.