I'm for a "Federal Sales Tax". Simple, if I sell in a state I have a physical presence in, I must abide by the local laws where my business resides. If I sell across state boundaries, all of those sales must collect a "Federal Sales Tax". This "Federal Sales Tax" collected is then distributed to the 50 states with 50% being distributed evenly across all 50 states and the remaining 50% distributed based on a percentage of population living in that state (so ND would get a very small portion of the second half whereas California would get a very large portion of the second half, but both states would get an equal share of the first 50% of the tax).

Such a system would eliminate the burden on the buyer to be 'honest' and report their use tax (who really does this?), makes a very reasonable burden on the seller to collect a tax for sales across state lines, and all 50 states benefit from the taxes.

While I'd prefer to just say "screw all of this", eliminate all forms of taxation except sales tax, make it a flat 10%, and tax EVERY sale (from the manufacturer to the wholesaler to the retailer to the reseller), but that's just a pipe dream.

I'm a small business owner. I sell to the 48 contiguous states and D.C. Right now, I have to be aware of any sales that occur in PA, and also have to be aware of any sales to people in Philadelphia specifically, because I must collect different taxes for each case. This is enough of a headache for a one person operation, but I make enough from the side business to make it worth the effort. I expect there are tens of thousands more like me, if not hundreds of thousands. We all are making an extra % of income from side businesses, collecting the tax for our state, and allowing other states to require their citizens to pay a Use tax on products they order across state lines. This is logical, and fair to businesses, as the burden to a business with one or two employees of having to keep track of the taxes in each county, borough, municipality, city, town, hamlet, and commonwealth in each state would be so extreme as to make nearly all small businesses either close shop or stop selling across state lines (and to cut one's audience to 1/50th the size almost guarantees going out of business in this day and age).

Now from my limited understanding of the economy, it would seem that a sudden disappearance of say 5-10% of income on hundreds of thousands of people in the 50 states could negatively impact our economy. Suddenly, I'd not have extra money to spend on entertainment and services (the only things our economy really produces much of at this point), and therefore those services would no longer be collecting taxes from me, and therefore the government would lose money. Seems pretty straightforward to me that to force the business to handle all of the tax legwork for all states in which they sell a product would kill any and all small businesses from selling anything on the internet, and would cripple the larger online businesses, eliminating the grease that makes the wheels of our economy turn.

Am I wrong here? I know I'd have to simply close up shop if a law required me to keep track of all 48 states' tax laws and all the tax intricacies of the various towns and sections of those states. I can't imagine I'm in the minority here.

Invite sent.

Spit in the mud, wipe on the eyes, go rinse the eyes in that river over there... that sounded like a prescription of sorts to me. Another was to go wash in this other river, dipping one's self three times, and the unclean skin would become clean. Again, this sounds like step by step instructions for healing / miracles to me.

Um... I did exactly that. I had received an email from an educational institute, a credit card company, and a theatre club, all addressed to someone with a different first name. My email address is just my last name, so I kinda expected I'd eventually get wrong emails, but this was all email addresses manually provided by this other individual to these companies. With the three emails, I decided I had enough info to do some quick research. I found out who she was, where she worked, etc., and got her correct email address. I then replied to all of the companies, copying her, requesting they correct their records to reflect the correct email address. When they refused, I reset the password on all of the accounts, changed the email address, then clicked on the "reset password" link again. I then emailed the original person telling them what I did because I was tired of receiving their emails. It took less than a half hour, was fun to research, and resolved the issue. It can be done (sometimes).
 
I'll admit that the amount of data available from these simple emails was a bit scary... I could have dropped by her house or gave her parents a ring with the data I found in that short search.

stupid HTML stripping... that was "short ( < 500 mile ) trips"

Yep, this is the route I hope to pursue in the next few years. I hope to buy a Terrafugia or similar, once available and prices are in the $100k range. It'll be nice to drive to the airport, fly to the next airport, and drive to my final destination. 110-115mph isn't the fastest in the world, but with so many small airports, and so much traffic on the major highways during rush hour, for short ( 500 mile ) trips, it will beat out flying commercial any day.

This completely ignores what point I was making. That the article says Google Voice, the root comment "Google Voice isn't VOIP" - this is simply false. It is VOIP. Your comment is correct, but is not in relation to the comment I was making about the root comment being wrong that Google Voice isn't VOIP.

Google Voice integrates with GChat and Google Talk, it's all essentially one service, and my Google Voice number is what people see when I call via the Gmail chat application, so Google Voice is VOIP.

I know this doesn't eliminate the issues with the patriot act, etc., but at least it's a step in the right direction of treating digital 'property' the same as physical property when dealing with "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. . ." (emphasis mine).

Stop trolling. Please. If you're serious in your belief, you're doing absolutely no good trying to spout it off here, as you're coming across as an idiot rather than an intelligent person with something to contribute. Please don't make it harder for the rest of us out there who have faith to be able to hold intelligent discourse with other non-believing human beings.

Thank you for your time.

Many of those who consider themselves "religious" are smart enough to know that there are two types of stem cells: embryonic and adult stem cells. We only have issue with the embryonic cells due to the method generally used to collect them (abortions). Many are reasonable enough (including myself) to have no issue with cells harvested from the afterbirth of normal non-abortive births - the issue is that using cells from abortions creates a demand for cells from abortions, which in turn creates a social benefit from abortions, which then encourages abortion in general. By removing the benefits gleaned by science from aborted children, you remove the very issue which drives the anti-stem cell movement, and society as a whole can just get on with the science of curing diseases.

Please learn to be less bigoted towards people of faith, as we are as varied in belief as the world is varied in race, culture, and language.

They make you sign an agreement that they retain the copyright... get a good photographer, pay the higher price, and have it be a work for hire instead of the standard contract that leaves those photos as his/her property!

This removes the "distance" that all of these companies using Righthaven chose Righthaven for, so they'd be liable for any losses. The current situation appears to leave only Righthaven responsible for any losses, and leaves the businesses free and clear of any possible loss.

Who you calling buddy, pal?