321–330 of 691 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this what small claims court is for?
So now likely hundreds (or more) of individuals have to not only wait on hold forever, but have to learn the process of and actually go through with filing a small claim? That there is recourse is beside the point when it is mired in bureaucracy (not to mention taking days off to show up to court, etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dish knows their satellite TV business is on the way out. Their strategy is to maximize the present value of that business by retaining and squeezing as many of those customers as much as possible, slowing the decline and pulling as much money out of that vertical for as long as they still have it, so that they can reinvest that cash into new verticals with more promise.
The ironic part of all of this, I would have pay linear TV services if it was cheaper - 50 bucks a month for the whole house, and I suspect they could have 30%+ more customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Online retailers could be required to use the best available estimate of the user's location to calculate the tax, like they do for ads. So if they are logged in with an address on file, it could be that. If not, they could use geolocation, with a note that the tax is estimated. And let the user input a location in a box to show the exact tax.
> they could use geolocation, with a note that the tax is estimated So we'd go from the current regime where the displayed price is wrong to another regime where the displayed price is wrong? Allegedly, something like 40%+ of Americans use VPNs. They would pretty much always see the wrong price. In practice, the ramification of this would be that your local indie retailers (where we are much less likely to be persist…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is a move afoot Who is behind this move? What individuals, and what politicians? By what legal means is this happening? I've literally never heard of anything like this before - without further details, this is just political flame-baiting.
> Who is behind this move? What individuals, and what politicians? By what legal means is this happening? The supreme court. The removal of Chevron Deference this year means that the courts have given themselves huge amounts of power over any administrative decision that isn't specifically regulated by congress (rather than the prior stance which was to presume that agency decisions were reasonable interpretations of…
Agencies no longer get special privileges in interpreting the scope of what Congress delegated to them.
Within the scope of what Congress delegated to them, they still have an much power and discretion as ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a move afoot to eliminate all regulations unless they've been specifically passed by Congress. Which is basically incapable of passing anything. Ironically, that inherent dysfunction is the main reason to suspect that won't happen. But politically, every regulation as automatically partisan, even when it has overwhelming support.
>There is a move afoot to eliminate all regulations unless they've been specifically passed by Congress. Which is basically incapable of passing anything. It's hard to argue with this in principal. The rules as law BS has been a band-aid over dysfunction. It needs to go. It'll hurt in the short term but should be more sustainable in the long term. That people will get more angry at congress for doing nothing is icing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take a good guess and let the user type in their zip code?
Zip codes are for postal routing, not tax rates. Items I order at home are subject to a 7.25% sales tax rate. My neighbor across the street (our front doors are maybe 80 feet apart) pays 6.75%. We both live in the same zip code. We both live within the same city. We both live in the same school district. We each live in two different counties . (And up the road a bit, a third county is involved instead.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> A rule is proposed to require customers to be able to cancel any subscription on the vendor's website. Except that's not the proposed rule. The way this works in California (and the way the rule the FTC recently published works, I believe) is that a business is required to allow customers to cancel "in the same medium" that they subscribed. That doesn't require anyone to start running a website. The rest of your po…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s the transaction that is taxed, not the money. By your logic I shouldn’t have to pay income tax on sales because my customers already paid income tax. We could simply the whole thing by just making dollar bills worth $0.66.
> By your logic I shouldn’t have to pay income tax on sales because my customers already paid income tax. People often believe that because something has been for a while, it must always be so. Not too long ago we didn't have sales tax (introduced in the 1950's), and things were fine. You are taxed on your income, and you are taxed on your expenses. If you invest that money or do anything productive with it, it gets…
I’d love to abolish regressive sales taxes and return to 1950s level progressive income tax rates. You have my vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a move afoot to eliminate all regulations unless they've been specifically passed by Congress. Which is basically incapable of passing anything. Ironically, that inherent dysfunction is the main reason to suspect that won't happen. But politically, every regulation as automatically partisan, even when it has overwhelming support.
>There is a move afoot to eliminate all regulations unless they've been specifically passed by Congress. Which is basically incapable of passing anything. It's hard to argue with this in principal. The rules as law BS has been a band-aid over dysfunction. It needs to go. It'll hurt in the short term but should be more sustainable in the long term. That people will get more angry at congress for doing nothing is icing…
I want to be optimistic about this. In practice it seems that the strategy created by McConnel to block any legislation at all has been doing/tricking the voter really well. As he predicted, credit for anything good goes to the current admin while anything bad also gets blamed on the current admin. I can see a likely scenario where "people getting more angry" will only make this strategy to block everything work even better. I hope I am wrong and the "nuance" that congress exists and isn't controlled by the president will finally get into people heads. I also hope that once it gets into their heads, the conclusion won't be that a authoritarian dictator is needed.