FYI
My company is looking for experienced people in West Melbourne FL :
Cabinet Makers / Countertop Fabricators $15.00/hr to start
Field Superintendent $30-$50K / year
Please forward info to those who are looking to relocate due to Katrina as
well.
Thanks,
Rich
[email protected] remove the hate spam part
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'm unaware of that restriction--what would be the purpose of building
> the Indian "Smoke Shop" on the side of the interstate w/ big billboards
> if they weren't after the general traveling public?
It's to sell to the general public. The Indian has been playing "piss on the
white man" for years. They aren't supposed to do it, but they do and they
know that nobody will do anything about it. Their fireworks stands are the
same way. They know where people are taking them, they know that it is
illegal, but they do it anyway.
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:44:41 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> No *income* taxes at any rate. There are still property and sales taxes.
>> That is certainly a big draw. I know that going from Texas to Arizona, the
>> addition of having to account for income tax was a major consideration.
>>
>Washington has no income tax either, but sales tax is 8.somehing - they
>just raised it again and I can't remember the fraction.
>
Here in AZ (Tucson, Pima County), we pay right around 8.1%. Plus income
tax, plus property taxes (property taxes aren't quite as high as Texas --
and definitely not as high as some of the folks in the Houston area have
reported paying.
>And if you're self-employed there's something called the "business and
>occupation" tax. It's on gross - you can lose money and still owe
>taxes.
I don't have any direct knowledge of the equivalent here in AZ, so I
can't comment.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
lgb wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > >Washington has no income tax either, but sales tax is 8.somehing - they
> > >just raised it again and I can't remember the fraction.
> > >
> >
> > Here in AZ (Tucson, Pima County), we pay right around 8.1%. Plus income
> > tax, plus property taxes (property taxes aren't quite as high as Texas --
> > and definitely not as high as some of the folks in the Houston area have
> > reported paying.
> >
> I don't think there's very many places that don't have property taxes.
> Luckily, WA has a senior citizens exemption, all or part depending on
> the value of the property. Ours is low enough on the scale that we pay
> nothing.
>
> I think the B&O tax is pretty unique, although I'm sure there are a few
> other places with the equivalent. I've heard it was supposed to be a
> sneaky income tax that most voters wouldn't have to pay, just the "rich
> businessman" and those dang independent self-employed. The rate varies
> by business/occupation with services paying the highest rates. Now that
> I'm retired of course we don't have to pay that either.
>
Business receipts tax. Gross business income tax. It's sneaky, it's
unfair, but it's also reasonably common.
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> I wonder why anyone would go there.
Is it where the FBI has all the best jobs earmarked?
I get =A313 an hour here in the UK but that is site work and on a self
employed short term contract basis. Shop work is traditionally lower
waged. But you'd get =A38 an hour or more to start. Not many joiners
would take it on even if they were strapped.
And you would not have to find your own health insurance, dental
treatment and that sort of thing. And there are usually bonus
incentives.
But I think a few lads would take it on if they could get a permit to
work in Florida. And be daft enough to come in the summer too.
In article <r%[email protected]>, Lew
Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Think you will find the Canucks have a little different perspective on
> this issue than the folks here in the US do.
Different gummints, different problems.
A blog worth reading if you're interested the issue here in (western)
Canuckistan is <http://www.dustmybroom.com/>. Native POV but without
the "I'm a viictim" attitude.
djb
--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
lgb wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > >BTW, WA is getting really nasty about folks (not us) who go to Idaho to
> > >buy cigarettes. Random stops at the border. And if you bought them at
> > >an Indian reservation, you're really in trouble.
> >
> > Really? ... and what reason do they give for restraining free citizens
> > from trading where, how, and with whom they choose?
> >
> I think it's not only the state taxes, but that the reservations (IIRC)
> don't pay federal taxes either. And they're not supposed to sell to
> anyone not a tribal member.
...
I'm unaware of that restriction--what would be the purpose of building
the Indian "Smoke Shop" on the side of the interstate w/ big billboards
if they weren't after the general traveling public? (I never have
bought tobacco products so don't really know, but sure doesn't look like
any restriction anywhere I've been and there are a bunch of 'em in OK,
TX, NM, AZ, KS, SD, etc., in the general area around here. That doesn't
really cover the NW but I seem to recall them being pretty prominent
when we were there last, as well.)
CW wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I'm unaware of that restriction--what would be the purpose of building
> > the Indian "Smoke Shop" on the side of the interstate w/ big billboards
> > if they weren't after the general traveling public?
>
> It's to sell to the general public. The Indian has been playing "piss on the
> white man" for years. They aren't supposed to do it, but they do and they
> know that nobody will do anything about it. Their fireworks stands are the
> same way. They know where people are taking them, they know that it is
> illegal, but they do it anyway.
I don't believe it's illegal is my point--at least in the areas around
here.
As for the viewpoint of who's doing which to whom, I think there's some
history there, perhaps?
CW wrote:
>
> Living right next to an Indian reservation, I will tell you, it IS illegal
> unless they are paying the same taxes as everyone else.
That's not quite the same question as was posed earlier...
> History is just that, history. No one living today was involved in any of
> this "history". Live for the time.
Hard to completely forget the past...I find it remarkable, frankly that
as many come as close to doing so as do. My BIL the Cherokee is pretty
much in the vein you describe albeit w/ some very definite traits owing
to his heritage. Others, not quite so much so.
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > CW wrote:
> > >
> > > "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > I'm unaware of that restriction--what would be the purpose of building
> > > > the Indian "Smoke Shop" on the side of the interstate w/ big
> billboards
> > > > if they weren't after the general traveling public?
> > >
> > > It's to sell to the general public. The Indian has been playing "piss on
> the
> > > white man" for years. They aren't supposed to do it, but they do and
> they
> > > know that nobody will do anything about it. Their fireworks stands are
> the
> > > same way. They know where people are taking them, they know that it is
> > > illegal, but they do it anyway.
> >
> > I don't believe it's illegal is my point--at least in the areas around
> > here.
> >
> > As for the viewpoint of who's doing which to whom, I think there's some
> > history there, perhaps?
CW wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > CW wrote:
> > >
> > > Living right next to an Indian reservation, I will tell you, it IS
> illegal
> > > unless they are paying the same taxes as everyone else.
> >
> > That's not quite the same question as was posed earlier...
>
> Sure is. Try to fallow along.
Not quite...first implied it was illegal to sell to anyone other than
Indians, as opposed to not collecting same tax from various customers...
> >
> > > History is just that, history. No one living today was involved in any
> of
> > > this "history". Live for the time.
> >
> > Hard to completely forget the past...I find it remarkable, frankly that
> > as many come as close to doing so as do. My BIL the Cherokee is pretty
> > much in the vein you describe albeit w/ some very definite traits owing
> > to his heritage. Others, not quite so much so.
>
> So, are you one of those who feel that we should still be apologizing? ...
No, not really. Just pointing out there's some basis for them not being
all that happy about the way things are...
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <r%[email protected]>, Lew
> Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Think you will find the Canucks have a little different perspective on
>>this issue than the folks here in the US do.
>
>
> Different gummints, different problems.
>
> A blog worth reading if you're interested the issue here in (western)
> Canuckistan is <http://www.dustmybroom.com/>. Native POV but without
> the "I'm a viictim" attitude.
>
> djb
>
Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
Looks like you may have made someone a little too popular.
Joe
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:12:12 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> $20.00 to $27.00 around here. It varies, of course, depending on
>> geographic
>> area but I don't see Melbourne Florida as a depressed economy.
>
>Seems like most wages are depressed in Florida. One of my co-workers just
>moved to FLA a few months ago and took a$15,000 pay cut to do the same job.
>If you look at one of the job sites like monster.com you'll wonder why
>anyone would go there to work. Low pay aside, I wonder why anyone would go
>there.
>
Depends upon how much one dislikes winter.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:33:46 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
... snip
>
>BTW, WA is getting really nasty about folks (not us) who go to Idaho to
>buy cigarettes. Random stops at the border. And if you bought them at
>an Indian reservation, you're really in trouble.
Really? ... and what reason do they give for restraining free citizens
from trading where, how, and with whom they choose?
I could see if the people doing so were doing this for re-sale; the
rationale for legal restriction there could possibly be made; but if these
are simply citizens who have found that driving to another state or an
Indian reservation provides the best value for their money, then it seems
state law has overstepped its bounds.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Living right next to an Indian reservation, I will tell you, it IS illegal
unless they are paying the same taxes as everyone else.
History is just that, history. No one living today was involved in any of
this "history". Live for the time.
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW wrote:
> >
> > "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > I'm unaware of that restriction--what would be the purpose of building
> > > the Indian "Smoke Shop" on the side of the interstate w/ big
billboards
> > > if they weren't after the general traveling public?
> >
> > It's to sell to the general public. The Indian has been playing "piss on
the
> > white man" for years. They aren't supposed to do it, but they do and
they
> > know that nobody will do anything about it. Their fireworks stands are
the
> > same way. They know where people are taking them, they know that it is
> > illegal, but they do it anyway.
>
> I don't believe it's illegal is my point--at least in the areas around
> here.
>
> As for the viewpoint of who's doing which to whom, I think there's some
> history there, perhaps?
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "CW"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The government, to this day, continues to screw over the Indian by
> > continuing to pay them to stay on the reservation rather than
encouraging
> > them to assimilate with society.
>
> They were assimilated to their societies hundreds of years ago.
Change is a constant.
>
> "Toss out who you are and where you came from... and become like one of
us?"
"Toss out who you are and where you came from"? You mean living in a slum
or do you mean the way they were 150 years ago?
One's undesirable, the other impossible.
> I guess if we wait long enough, the apologies are no longer
required/expected?
I have nothing to apologize for and, unless you are 150 years old, neither
do you.
>
> Then again, I could just be talking through my hat.... but it all depends
on how you look at things, eh?
In article <[email protected]>, "Rich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>FYI
>
>My company is looking for experienced people in West Melbourne FL :
>
>Cabinet Makers / Countertop Fabricators $15.00/hr to start
>Field Superintendent $30-$50K / year
Please repost after you correct the typos in the dollar figures.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> No *income* taxes at any rate. There are still property and sales taxes.
> That is certainly a big draw. I know that going from Texas to Arizona, the
> addition of having to account for income tax was a major consideration.
>
Washington has no income tax either, but sales tax is 8.somehing - they
just raised it again and I can't remember the fraction.
And if you're self-employed there's something called the "business and
occupation" tax. It's on gross - you can lose money and still owe
taxes.
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >Washington has no income tax either, but sales tax is 8.somehing - they
> >just raised it again and I can't remember the fraction.
> >
>
> Here in AZ (Tucson, Pima County), we pay right around 8.1%. Plus income
> tax, plus property taxes (property taxes aren't quite as high as Texas --
> and definitely not as high as some of the folks in the Houston area have
> reported paying.
>
I don't think there's very many places that don't have property taxes.
Luckily, WA has a senior citizens exemption, all or part depending on
the value of the property. Ours is low enough on the scale that we pay
nothing.
I think the B&O tax is pretty unique, although I'm sure there are a few
other places with the equivalent. I've heard it was supposed to be a
sneaky income tax that most voters wouldn't have to pay, just the "rich
businessman" and those dang independent self-employed. The rate varies
by business/occupation with services paying the highest rates. Now that
I'm retired of course we don't have to pay that either.
And we don't have enough income to require filing federal tax returns,
so the only non-hidden tax we pay is the sales tax. And between the
exemption for food, online purchases, and the occasional foray to Idaho
(10 miles away) which has a lower sales tax, we don't get hit that bad
there either.
BTW, WA is getting really nasty about folks (not us) who go to Idaho to
buy cigarettes. Random stops at the border. And if you bought them at
an Indian reservation, you're really in trouble.
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >BTW, WA is getting really nasty about folks (not us) who go to Idaho to
> >buy cigarettes. Random stops at the border. And if you bought them at
> >an Indian reservation, you're really in trouble.
>
> Really? ... and what reason do they give for restraining free citizens
> from trading where, how, and with whom they choose?
>
I think it's not only the state taxes, but that the reservations (IIRC)
don't pay federal taxes either. And they're not supposed to sell to
anyone not a tribal member.
But in principle, I agree with you. Nothing, however, will stop a
government at any level in its relentless pursuit of revenue.
I know you (and Dave) will be surprised at that comment from someone you
consider a liberal :-). Maybe next time I say I'm just a cynic you'll
remember this.
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> > Sure is. Try to fallow along.
>
> Not quite...first implied it was illegal to sell to anyone other than
> Indians, as opposed to not collecting same tax from various customers...
>
But the only reason the stuff is cheaper is because they are NOT paying
any taxes. Yes, one could open a smoke shop on a reservation and charge
the taxes and it would be perfectly legal. Unfortunately, the shop
would go out of business in short order :-).
Untaxed tobacco is legally for sale only to tribal members - a
"sovereign nation" in the law.
That's why the states go after the purchasers and not the sellers - the
sellers are outside their jurisdiction. There may be some exceptions to
that, I'm not familiar with the wording of all (or any) of the pertinent
treaties.
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> 1) Screw that "Native American" crap. Call 'em Lakota, or Indah, or
> Tohono O'odam, or whatever, or call them Indians. I'm a native American,
> too.
>
There are no native Americans - at least not human ones. According to the
paleontologists, we're ALL African-Americans :-).
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
At that pay rate, I hope you're not in a hurry (or have high expectations).
"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> FYI
>
> My company is looking for experienced people in West Melbourne FL :
>
> Cabinet Makers / Countertop Fabricators $15.00/hr to start
> Field Superintendent $30-$50K / year
>
> Please forward info to those who are looking to relocate due to Katrina as
> well.
>
> Thanks,
> Rich
>
>
> [email protected] remove the hate spam part
>
>
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 00:18:01 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>At that pay rate, I hope you're not in a hurry (or have high expectations).
>"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> FYI
>>
>> My company is looking for experienced people in West Melbourne FL :
>>
>> Cabinet Makers / Countertop Fabricators $15.00/hr to start
>> Field Superintendent $30-$50K / year
>>
CW, just out of curiosity, what would you consider competitive wages for
these positions?
>> Please forward info to those who are looking to relocate due to Katrina as
>> well.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rich
>>
>>
>> [email protected] remove the hate spam part
>>
>>
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:24:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> Really? ... and what reason do they give for restraining free citizens
> >> from trading where, how, and with whom they choose?
> >>
> >> I could see if the people doing so were doing this for re-sale; the
> >> rationale for legal restriction there could possibly be made; but if these
> >> are simply citizens who have found that driving to another state or an
> >> Indian reservation provides the best value for their money, then it seems
> >> state law has overstepped its bounds.
> >
> >You can trade all you want as long as you pay the state taxes. In most
> >states you can cross the border to buy cigs or booze, but you have to pay
> >the state tax on them when you return. Same with crossing the border to
> >Mexico or Canada (or internationals, for that matter) you are only allowed a
> >small amount to cross over with. When I go to Canada, I always stop at the
> >duty free shop on the way back.
> >
>
> Understand the rationale for entering the US -- there you are paying US
> import fees. However, in the other case, this seems like something that
> the US Constitution was exactly designed to prevent. i.e, states cannot tax
> goods entering their states.
>
> >Same when buying mail order goods. You are obligated to pay a use tax to
> >your state. We have a line item on our income tax form to declare your
> >purchases. Commercial truckers get into fuel taxes by state also.
>
> But the commercial truckers only pay fuel taxes on the fuel they buy in
> the state in which they buy it, right? They don't get taxed according to
> the amount of fuel they have in their tanks when they enter the state? In
> the case in question, unlike the mail order goods issue (which, IMO is also
> fairly questionable regarding constitutionality and regulating and taxing
> interstate commerce), the citizen who has bought those goods in another
> state has paid the taxes associated with those goods in the state in which
> he bought them. To be further taxed is to negate one of the primary
> driving forces for why the US constitution was set up in the first place!
> Under the confederation of states, various states were taxing goods being
> traded between states and setting up tariffs and other duties on those
> goods. The only difference here is that it is currently a politically
> incorrect substance (tobacco) being interdicted, but the principles should
> remain the same.
>
>
But it's not just politically incorrect substances. When I moved to WV,
I discovered that to register my car there, I had to pay a 5% tax that
amounted to a sales tax, even though I'd bought the vehicle several
years before in Virginia, where I had paid all legal taxes.
State governments are just like the Federal government. Give 'em a
chance to screw the taxpayer and they grab it. Maybe a decade or so
ago, trying to pump their tax receipts, both NJ and PA attempted to
collect taxes from me for work done for companies in those states. Both
were farmed out to lawyers, who sent threatening letters, promising
prosecution if I didn't pay. Of course, not having set foot in either
state in many years at that time, I owed them squat, which is what I
paid. I finally had to tell the officious twit from NJ that I was about
to file a harrassment lawsuit if he didn't get off my back. Last I
heard from the jerk. The Pennsy prick just got a note saying I neither
lived nor worked in his state, so owed it exactly nothing. Never heard
from him again either.
IMO, this is a government version of those spammers out there now who
fire off messages telling you such and such an account is going to be
closed if you don't provide info.
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:24:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Really? ... and what reason do they give for restraining free citizens
>>> from trading where, how, and with whom they choose?
>>>
>>> I could see if the people doing so were doing this for re-sale; the
>>> rationale for legal restriction there could possibly be made; but if these
>>> are simply citizens who have found that driving to another state or an
>>> Indian reservation provides the best value for their money, then it seems
>>> state law has overstepped its bounds.
>>
>>You can trade all you want as long as you pay the state taxes. In most
>>states you can cross the border to buy cigs or booze, but you have to pay
>>the state tax on them when you return. Same with crossing the border to
>>Mexico or Canada (or internationals, for that matter) you are only allowed a
>>small amount to cross over with. When I go to Canada, I always stop at the
>>duty free shop on the way back.
>>
>
> Understand the rationale for entering the US -- there you are paying US
>import fees. However, in the other case, this seems like something that
>the US Constitution was exactly designed to prevent. i.e, states cannot tax
>goods entering their states.
FALSE TO FACT. The states cannot do engage in acts that interfere with
interstate commerce. If 'imported' goods are treated the same as in-state
manufactured goods -- i.e. where both are taxed equally -- this is *NOT*
a constitutional violation. Not my opinion, but that of the U.S. Supreme
Court. -- and they've held that opinion for a long time. Occasionally
somebody comes with a new means of challenging it, and gets slapped down
yet again. The last time was in the last Sup. Ct. session, Regarding a
Michigan tax on truckers.
>
>>Same when buying mail order goods. You are obligated to pay a use tax to
>>your state. We have a line item on our income tax form to declare your
>>purchases. Commercial truckers get into fuel taxes by state also.
>
> But the commercial truckers only pay fuel taxes on the fuel they buy in
>the state in which they buy it, right? They don't get taxed according to
>the amount of fuel they have in their tanks when they enter the state?
Wrong again -- They pay fuel taxes based on the number of _miles_ they drive
in each state, regardless of where the fuel was bought.
> In
>the case in question, unlike the mail order goods issue (which, IMO is also
>fairly questionable regarding constitutionality and regulating and taxing
>interstate commerce),
The supreme court has said otherwise, *repeatedly*, and we all know whose
opinion counts for more, when it is 'yours' vs 'theirs'. <grin>
> the citizen who has bought those goods in another
>state has paid the taxes associated with those goods in the state in which
>he bought them.
Maybe yes, maybe *NOT*.
> To be further taxed is to negate one of the primary
>driving forces for why the US constitution was set up in the first place!
>Under the confederation of states, various states were taxing goods being
>traded between states and setting up tariffs and other duties on those
>goods. The only difference here is that it is currently a politically
>incorrect substance (tobacco) being interdicted, but the principles should
>remain the same.
You don't know what you don't know. <grin>
The principles being enforced *are* the same. To wit:
Try buying an automobile from an out-of-state dealer, or direct from
the factory.
You *will* be billed by your state of residence for the exact equivalent
of the sales tax on the price of that purchase, had it been made 'in state'.
Note: as an 'out of state purchaser' with delivery out-of-state, you are
*not* liable for 'sales tax' in the jurisdiction where the sale took place.
Tobacco, and alcohol _are_ however, treated as 'special cases'.
Most states require that you have a _license_ to 'import' those products
into their state.
They are *not* the only items, by any means, that get such treatment -- and
it is _not_ because they are "politically incorrect' substances -- raw dairy
products, fireworks, pressurized gasses, demolition explosives, etc. are
among other items treated similarly.
Tobacco specifically, has taxes assessed on it at the manufacturing and/or
wholesale/distribution level -- the earliest point in the 'chain' (of product
distribution) that is in the state where the eventual retail sale of the
product occurs. Those who import the product into the state are responsible
for remitting those taxes to the state government; as are those who manufacture
the product for eventual in-state sale.
Where taxes are disparate on opposite sides of a state border, a purchaser
in the 'low tax' state, has *not* paid the required taxes assessed by the
'high tax' state.
The law _does_ make allowance for "personal use" of such imported goods
*without* having to pay additional 'high tax' state taxes on those goods.
*HOWEVER*, the law _also_ defines limits -- fairly restrictive ones -- on
how large a quantity is considered eligible for 'personal use'. Beyond that
quantity, you are "presumptively" importing for the use of others -- and are
engaged in [1] 'bootlegging', [2] failure to have a business license for that
kind of business venture, [3] failure to remit the relevant taxes to the
_destination_state (if you were stupid enough to pay state taxes to the
purchasing state, when you were _in_legal_ _fact_, *exempt* from those
taxes --- well, that stupidity on your part is not the destination state's
problem :), [4] several other violations of state (and possibly federal) law.
>
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>,
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>
>...
>
>...[re truckers and fuel taxes[...
>> Wrong again -- They pay fuel taxes based on the number of _miles_ they drive
>> in each state, regardless of where the fuel was bought.
>....
>
>Are you sure about that?
Why, yes, now that you ask, I _am_ sure about that. <grin>
> Those would be prorated tag taxes, etc.,
Tag taxes are an entirely separate can of worms.
> but
>afaik diesel is only taxed at the pump just as is gasoline.
Your knowledge _is_ incomplete/faulty. :)
That's not a sin, nor a crime, as long as you are willing to learn from
those who *do* know.
Folks engaged in interstate transportation of goods via roadway have a
sh*tload of reporting -- and taxation -- requirements that they must deal
with. including reporting miles traveled in a given state, total miles
travelled, and total fuel purchases. To _each_ state that they travel
through. AND dealing with fuel taxes based on how much fuel they _consumed_
in each state, regardless of where it was bought. If they buy more in one
state, than they consume in that state, they *do* get a carry-forward credit
on the books, or (sometimes) a refund of that money from that state.
Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
...
...[re truckers and fuel taxes[...
> Wrong again -- They pay fuel taxes based on the number of _miles_ they drive
> in each state, regardless of where the fuel was bought.
....
Are you sure about that? Those would be prorated tag taxes, etc., but
afaik diesel is only taxed at the pump just as is gasoline.
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>
> ...
>
> ...[re truckers and fuel taxes[...
>> Wrong again -- They pay fuel taxes based on the number of _miles_ they
>> drive
>> in each state, regardless of where the fuel was bought.
> ....
>
> Are you sure about that? Those would be prorated tag taxes, etc., but
> afaik diesel is only taxed at the pump just as is gasoline.
They pay a fuel use tax. You must keep records of every gallon of fuel
purchased and what state it was purchased in. You must log the miles driven
in each state. Using the total miles driven and fuel purchased, you arrive
at the mpg that the truck gets. Let's say you drove 100,000 miles and
bought 12,000 gallons. That works out to 8.3 mpg. If you drove 2000 miles
in Connecticut and bought no fuel there, you must pay the (state) tax on 241
gallons of fuel. If you have receipts for 300 gallons that you bought in
that state, you would pay nothing additional and have a credit for the next
reporting period. (usually quarterly) You must do this in every state you
travel in You must have a fuel use permit for each state you travel in.
Look at all the stickers on the doors of trucks. You can get a temporary
three day in most states for a flat fee.
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:24:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Really? ... and what reason do they give for restraining free citizens
>> from trading where, how, and with whom they choose?
>>
>> I could see if the people doing so were doing this for re-sale; the
>> rationale for legal restriction there could possibly be made; but if these
>> are simply citizens who have found that driving to another state or an
>> Indian reservation provides the best value for their money, then it seems
>> state law has overstepped its bounds.
>
>You can trade all you want as long as you pay the state taxes. In most
>states you can cross the border to buy cigs or booze, but you have to pay
>the state tax on them when you return. Same with crossing the border to
>Mexico or Canada (or internationals, for that matter) you are only allowed a
>small amount to cross over with. When I go to Canada, I always stop at the
>duty free shop on the way back.
>
Understand the rationale for entering the US -- there you are paying US
import fees. However, in the other case, this seems like something that
the US Constitution was exactly designed to prevent. i.e, states cannot tax
goods entering their states.
>Same when buying mail order goods. You are obligated to pay a use tax to
>your state. We have a line item on our income tax form to declare your
>purchases. Commercial truckers get into fuel taxes by state also.
But the commercial truckers only pay fuel taxes on the fuel they buy in
the state in which they buy it, right? They don't get taxed according to
the amount of fuel they have in their tanks when they enter the state? In
the case in question, unlike the mail order goods issue (which, IMO is also
fairly questionable regarding constitutionality and regulating and taxing
interstate commerce), the citizen who has bought those goods in another
state has paid the taxes associated with those goods in the state in which
he bought them. To be further taxed is to negate one of the primary
driving forces for why the US constitution was set up in the first place!
Under the confederation of states, various states were taxing goods being
traded between states and setting up tariffs and other duties on those
goods. The only difference here is that it is currently a politically
incorrect substance (tobacco) being interdicted, but the principles should
remain the same.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:51:17 -0700, nospambob <[email protected]> wrote:
>I've heard no taxes are a BIG draw especially for retirees.
No *income* taxes at any rate. There are still property and sales taxes.
That is certainly a big draw. I know that going from Texas to Arizona, the
addition of having to account for income tax was a major consideration.
>
>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:12:12 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> $20.00 to $27.00 around here. It varies, of course, depending on
>>> geographic
>>> area but I don't see Melbourne Florida as a depressed economy.
>>
>>Seems like most wages are depressed in Florida. One of my co-workers just
>>moved to FLA a few months ago and took a$15,000 pay cut to do the same job.
>>If you look at one of the job sites like monster.com you'll wonder why
>>anyone would go there to work. Low pay aside, I wonder why anyone would go
>>there.
>>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The government, to this day, continues to screw over the Indian by
> continuing to pay them to stay on the reservation rather than encouraging
> them to assimilate with society.
They were assimilated to their societies hundreds of years ago.
"Toss out who you are and where you came from... and become like one of us?"
There are other peoples on this planet, right now, who aren't too keen on that imposition either.
To them, being the victims of conquest is the rule of today.
I guess if we wait long enough, the apologies are no longer required/expected?
Then again, I could just be talking through my hat.... but it all depends on how you look at things, eh?
$20.00 to $27.00 around here. It varies, of course, depending on geographic
area but I don't see Melbourne Florida as a depressed economy.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> CW, just out of curiosity, what would you consider competitive wages for
> these positions?
>
>
>
> >> Please forward info to those who are looking to relocate due to Katrina
as
> >> well.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Rich
> >>
> >>
> >> [email protected] remove the hate spam part
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
>
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----+
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW wrote:
> >
> > Living right next to an Indian reservation, I will tell you, it IS
illegal
> > unless they are paying the same taxes as everyone else.
>
> That's not quite the same question as was posed earlier...
Sure is. Try to fallow along.
>
> > History is just that, history. No one living today was involved in any
of
> > this "history". Live for the time.
>
> Hard to completely forget the past...I find it remarkable, frankly that
> as many come as close to doing so as do. My BIL the Cherokee is pretty
> much in the vein you describe albeit w/ some very definite traits owing
> to his heritage. Others, not quite so much so.
So, are you one of those who feel that we should still be apologizing? I'm
not and neither are most thinking people. Nothing to apologize for in any
case. Conquest was the rule of the day. If we hadn't done it, someone else
would. The government, to this day, continues to screw over the Indian by
continuing to pay them to stay on the reservation rather than encouraging
them to assimilate with society. The majority of reservations are no more
than slums. Yes, they have their casinos and smoke shops but the majority of
that money does not get back to the tribe as a whole.
>
> > "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > CW wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm unaware of that restriction--what would be the purpose of
building
> > > > > the Indian "Smoke Shop" on the side of the interstate w/ big
> > billboards
> > > > > if they weren't after the general traveling public?
> > > >
> > > > It's to sell to the general public. The Indian has been playing
"piss on
> > the
> > > > white man" for years. They aren't supposed to do it, but they do and
> > they
> > > > know that nobody will do anything about it. Their fireworks stands
are
> > the
> > > > same way. They know where people are taking them, they know that it
is
> > > > illegal, but they do it anyway.
> > >
> > > I don't believe it's illegal is my point--at least in the areas around
> > > here.
> > >
> > > As for the viewpoint of who's doing which to whom, I think there's
some
> > > history there, perhaps?
I've heard no taxes are a BIG draw especially for retirees.
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:12:12 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> $20.00 to $27.00 around here. It varies, of course, depending on
>> geographic
>> area but I don't see Melbourne Florida as a depressed economy.
>
>Seems like most wages are depressed in Florida. One of my co-workers just
>moved to FLA a few months ago and took a$15,000 pay cut to do the same job.
>If you look at one of the job sites like monster.com you'll wonder why
>anyone would go there to work. Low pay aside, I wonder why anyone would go
>there.
>
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> $20.00 to $27.00 around here. It varies, of course, depending on
>> geographic
>> area but I don't see Melbourne Florida as a depressed economy.
>
> Seems like most wages are depressed in Florida. One of my co-workers just
> moved to FLA a few months ago and took a$15,000 pay cut to do the same
> job. If you look at one of the job sites like monster.com you'll wonder
> why anyone would go there to work. Low pay aside, I wonder why anyone
> would go there.
>
Apparently many folks love the adventure of regular hurricanes to spice up
their lives.
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:05:27 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> The government, to this day, continues to screw over the Indian by
>>continuing to pay them to stay on the reservation rather than
>>encouraging them to assimilate with society.
>
>
> Think you will find the Canucks have a little different perspective on
> this issue than the folks here in the US do.
>
snip
> He made some very interesting points that I have long since forgotten.
I went to high school on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. Here's the
scoop: Great White Father tried to get the Indians(1) to assimilate(2).
The Indians had other ideas. The gummint tried, and failed, in
"encouraging them to assimilate with society."
Indians do have some real problems. You try maintaining a
hunter-gatherer culture in the middle of the Information Age. The
Athapaskans have another problem: a liver enzyme allele which doesn't
process ethanol as efficiently as other alleles. "White Lightning" really
does hit owners of this allele harder than some of the rest of us.
Their culture is, however, alive and well. To put this discussion into
perspective, consider the Picts or the Canaanites. As brutally as
American Indians were treated, they're damn lucky to still be around.
An earlier, less enlightened (as bad as it was) migration would've
wiped them out.
Oh, there are some racist assholes among the Indians, too. Mostly,
surprise, they're really nice folks. Even if the kids in school did call
me " 'ndeh da'shkin "(3) behind my back.
(1) Screw that "Native American" crap. Call 'em Lakota, or Indah, or
Tohono O'odam, or whatever, or call them Indians. I'm a native American,
too.
(2) A large portion of the surnames on the rez came from the Philadelphia
phone book,circa 1875. Census taker couldn't spell Apache names, so he
picked names from the White pages.
(3) White bastard.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com
"CW" wrote:
> The government, to this day, continues to screw over the Indian by
>continuing to pay them to stay on the reservation rather than encouraging
>them to assimilate with society.
Think you will find the Canucks have a little different perspective on
this issue than the folks here in the US do.
Swapped a few lies and a lot of cold ones one Saturday night trying to
resolve this issue with a fellow sailor, who happened to be a Canuck
while in his home port.
He made some very interesting points that I have long since forgotten.
Lew
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Really? ... and what reason do they give for restraining free citizens
> from trading where, how, and with whom they choose?
>
> I could see if the people doing so were doing this for re-sale; the
> rationale for legal restriction there could possibly be made; but if these
> are simply citizens who have found that driving to another state or an
> Indian reservation provides the best value for their money, then it seems
> state law has overstepped its bounds.
You can trade all you want as long as you pay the state taxes. In most
states you can cross the border to buy cigs or booze, but you have to pay
the state tax on them when you return. Same with crossing the border to
Mexico or Canada (or internationals, for that matter) you are only allowed a
small amount to cross over with. When I go to Canada, I always stop at the
duty free shop on the way back.
Same when buying mail order goods. You are obligated to pay a use tax to
your state. We have a line item on our income tax form to declare your
purchases. Commercial truckers get into fuel taxes by state also.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> $20.00 to $27.00 around here. It varies, of course, depending on
> geographic
> area but I don't see Melbourne Florida as a depressed economy.
Seems like most wages are depressed in Florida. One of my co-workers just
moved to FLA a few months ago and took a$15,000 pay cut to do the same job.
If you look at one of the job sites like monster.com you'll wonder why
anyone would go there to work. Low pay aside, I wonder why anyone would go
there.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>
>
> Depends upon how much one dislikes winter.
>
I like winter more than palmetto bugs and H O T muggy summers.