Lack of support kills HB 2021, parking lot bill

[RobertNashville]

Yeah, no. See sometimes you pay the taxes and sometimes you don't. I know, I know, you think that if there is a tax of X% on some business that is necessarily passed on to the consumer. A very simplistic position..

I think macville understands the broad concept and I don't think that he sees it the way you protray is as "tax of X%" is "passed on to the consumer" as if it's an immediate, dollar for dollar process.

The principal is that a business has no money to pay taxes except out of its profits...profits, in one way or another, comes, at least primarily, from that business' customers...ultimately, then, taxes are indirectly paid by the business' customers who buy its products. It's not an issue of increasing a business' tax burden by $X and the additional burden is automatically passed onto customers...it's more of a philosophical and a political issue.

Politicians who want to raise taxes like to do so by raising them on businesses because such increases tend to become invisible to consumers (and there are a lot of people out there who seem to forget where a business' money comes from). Ultimately, however, higher taxes on business will result in higher prices to customers because that's where the majority of the money to pay the taxes has to come from.

Certainly, a business' product cost/pricing structure has many, many variables in it...it should also be obvious that we are looking at this in the long-term here...Washington putting a new excise tax on businesses today doesn't mean the customers will see exactly that much increase in prices tomorrow. But, eventually a business has to pass their costs, including their tax burden onto consumers.

They may be able to absorb (accept reduced profits) some tax increases for a time - they might even absorb some of them permanently, but they can't do so with every tax increase forever because if they do, they'll eventually have no profits or be in business at all for that matter!

Personally, I'd like to see all tax burdens on business reduced to ZERO and every individual be charged enough tax to pay for everything that we need the government to do for us...maybe that's an income tax...maybe it's a pure sales tax or something in between but it would certainly be better than the convoluted, manipulative system we have now.

[macville]

Yeah, no. See sometimes you pay the taxes and sometimes you don't. I know, I know, you think that if there is a tax of X% on some business that is necessarily passed on to the consumer. A very simplistic position.

I am speaking as a business owner of a business here in TN for the past five years, and yes, the taxes are passed straight on to the consumer. You don't think ANY business owner doesn't know the % of taxes levied profit/personal property/etc and work it into the cost of such item? They do. Not only that, but normally they add another % on top of that to pay for compliance, you know, paperwork, time it takes to file taxes, etc. This is all called overhead and every business owner (at least smart business owner) has figured out what it is and adds it into the price of their items/services.

Your example of Pepsi doesn't really make any sense in this context. They aren't charging more than the HFCS Pepsi because they probably wouldn't sell as much. They know they are making less profit, but they are still making profit. But what does that have to do with the fact that they still know how much taxes they are going to pay per case of cola?

[strickj]

Umm in the State of Tennessee unless you are a sole-proprietor, have a business that is passive income and is 90% family owned, or is a farm that is 90% family owned, you get to pay Franchise and Excise Tax. There are other taxes that cover those businesses, but aren't quite as hefty.

The argument posed was that all businesses must pay a "business tax". I'm simply saying that is not true.

But this gets into the question of self defense. Someone of my age has a better chance of defending themselves against an attacker than someone who's in their 70's or 80's. We do have a right to defend ourselves, even killing someone in self defense. The question becomes then, how is that applied? Does someone who can't swing their arm, but can pull a trigger get more rights to carry than me because I physically can?

A black man can not take off his color. A woman can not take off her sex. You can take off your gun.

Gun carry is a choice. Color, sex, disability, whatever is not.

Really...who exactly has to pay a "business tax" that isn't in/operating a business? What tax would that be?

I'm not surprised that your aren't aware of one and I don't know of one either but no one here said that there was "one coverall business tax".If you are speaking of a federal tax ID; yeah...they are easy to get and I suppose "anyone can get one" but so what? What does that have to do with anything?? Having one doesn't make you a "business" but most businesses, if they pay any sort of business taxes at all will likely have to get one...I don't know why anyone would want one who doesn't need one.

I stated awhile back that there are no blanket laws that all businesses must follow ( as this bill is). Someone said "business tax is a law and all businesses must follow those". That's how we got on that.

As far as who would get an ID that's not a business goes; A lot of racing guys get a tax ID so that they can buy parts directly from a manufacture.

I though we had a right to keep and bear arms...oh...wait...never mind.

Still waiting on proof that you do have that right apart from the government....

Really...a business can fire someone because they are black or a woman, etc. and get away with it???

Yes. If xyz is dependent of the job then you can be hired\fired based on xyz.

See the entrainment industry, fashion industry, porn industry, advertising industry, etc. just to name a few. You can also see this in manufacturing, or even movers (ever seen a mover that's disabled?).

No...we dont'...remember that according to strickj individuals have absolutely no rights if they are standing on someone else's property; not even the right to defend their life.

That's not "according to me". That's fact.

[strickj]

Guy's, I know that we have been debating business owners rights here but this bill does not actually mention the word "business" once.

It say's "No private or public employer". That means that it not only removes these rights from businesses but it also removes these rights from individuals, too.

As worded, that means that a homeowner hiring someone to mow their lawn will have these rights taken away....

Another thing it mentions is that te firearm must stay concealed. It does not offer any protection for visible firearms or even firearms that are concealed and you tell your employer it's in the car...

Useless feel good legislation anyone?

Edited April 22, 2011 by strickj

[leroy]

All:________________

Interesting read from Indiania. RE: "Parking Lot" legislation. Note the wording.

Link here: Gov. Mitch Daniels signs gun bill into law | The State Column

leroy

[RobertNashville]

...Yes. If xyz is dependent of the job then you can be hired\fired based on xyz. See the entrainment industry, fashion industry, porn industry, advertising industry, etc. just to name a few. You can also see this in manufacturing, or even movers (ever seen a mover that's disabled?).

Please provide an actual example of a job the must and can only be done by one race but cannot be done by another. ROTFLAO

[Guest General_Mayhem]

This is a disappointing outcome. And it's disappointing to read some of the commentary that's followed. My impression is that some folks have the impression that "right" = "right". Permit me to clarify: there are many meanings to the word "right", and the meaning that applies to the "right" recognized by the 2nd Amendment is different from the "right" of a business or property owner. Here's a quick excerpt from dictionary.com for the former and the latter:

right   

[rahyt] Show IPA

adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb, verb

–noun

[2nd Amendment context]

18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.

19. Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.

[business/property owner context]

23. Sometimes, rights. the interest or ownership a person, group, or business has in property: He has a 50-percent right in a silver mine. The author controls the screen rights for the book.

A property owner, or business owner, does not gain by virtue of ownership the ability to prohibit the natural right of anyone. Would anyone on this board agree with the assertion that a business owner could post a sign stating that rape of good-looking women was expressly permitted on the property? Of course not. The law of the land, and the natural rights of the individual, extend independent of an individual's or organization's ownership interest in a business or property.

The 2nd Amendment applies within the entire domain of the United States of America. As the Supreme Court reminded us not so long ago, with few exceptions, this right may not be abridged.

[Oh Shoot]

Please provide an actual example of a job the must and can only be done by one race but cannot be done by another. ROTFLAO

Grand Wizard of KKK?

President of Black Panthers?

- OS

[strickj]

Please provide an actual example of a job the must and can only be done by one race but cannot be done by another. ROTFLAO

Just one example? Well, in my little world, a client could hire me to provide advertising. If they want a 2'3 400 lb male Filipino midget for a model then that is who I will hire. Let's say that at a later date that their target demographic is different so they then tell me to provide them with a 6'2 120lb white woman. The male will be fired because his race,sex,disability and height no longer meets the requirements of the job.

Like I said, there are many, many industries that hire\fire based on these things and it is completely legal as long as the job itself is dependent of it.

If you want any more examples then just let me know

This is a disappointing outcome. And it's disappointing to read some of the commentary that's followed. My impression is that some folks have the impression that "right" = "right". Permit me to clarify: there are many meanings to the word "right", and the meaning that applies to the "right" recognized by the 2nd Amendment is different from the "right" of a business or property owner. Here's a quick excerpt from dictionary.com for the former and the latter:

right   

[rahyt] Show IPA

adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb, verb

–noun

[2nd Amendment context]

18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.

19. Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.

[business/property owner context]

23. Sometimes, rights. the interest or ownership a person, group, or business has in property: He has a 50-percent right in a silver mine. The author controls the screen rights for the book.

A property owner, or business owner, does not gain by virtue of ownership the ability to prohibit the natural right of anyone. Would anyone on this board agree with the assertion that a business owner could post a sign stating that rape of good-looking women was expressly permitted on the property? Of course not. The law of the land, and the natural rights of the individual, extend independent of an individual's or organization's ownership interest in a business or property.

The 2nd Amendment applies within the entire domain of the United States of America. As the Supreme Court reminded us not so long ago, with few exceptions, this right may not be abridged.

Yes, you are completely right. Some folks do not understand what a right actually is.

I would suggest reading up on your Constitution (and that SCOTUS ruling you referenced)

Edited April 23, 2011 by strickj

[macville]

A black man can not take off his color. A woman can not take off her sex. You can take off your gun.

Gun carry is a choice. Color, sex, disability, whatever is not.

Okay, let me try this again. What about a person who is old and frail? AKA: Pretty much disabled. They could still swing their arm, but more than likely if they hit a bad guy, THEIR arm would break. They have the same right to self defense as me, but they can not defend themselves in what most people would consider a normal defense (fighting back with their own strength.) This seems like something they can not prevent. So without a firearm, or another weapon, they in reality have lost all ability to self defense.

I think what my point boils down to, is that we all have the right to life. That's one of the most basic rights in this country. Seems like since life is the most valuable thing on earth, our rights/laws should reflect that. I say since business owners are forced to put in handicap stuff since "people can't help it", weapons should be allowed also since for most people, their own strength if they were to fight back would not be enough, so in reality, they are disabled when it comes to self defense.

BTW, this would not apply to the guy who you hire to cut your lawn or anything like it. For someone to be an employee you have to hire them as an employee. Hiring someone to cut your lawn is a service, just like getting a haircut. Last time I checked, you didn't pay your stylist's social security and withhold Federal Taxes. There are guidelines about what constitute an employee and what doesn't.

If business's don't want to accept this kind of law, then we need to get together and put a stop to all the other things that are forced down our throats.

[strickj]

Okay, let me try this again. What about a person who is old and frail? AKA: Pretty much disabled. They could still swing their arm, but more than likely if they hit a bad guy, THEIR arm would break. They have the same right to self defense as me, but they can not defend themselves in what most people would consider a normal defense (fighting back with their own strength.) This seems like something they can not prevent. So without a firearm, or another weapon, they in reality have lost all ability to self defense.

I think what my point boils down to, is that we all have the right to life. That's one of the most basic rights in this country. Seems like since life is the most valuable thing on earth, our rights/laws should reflect that. I say since business owners are forced to put in handicap stuff since "people can't help it", weapons should be allowed also since for most people, their own strength if they were to fight back would not be enough, so in reality, they are disabled when it comes to self defense.

In case you didn't know... I use a wheelchair to get around. I know about these laws, first hand, and on the legal side. Carrying a gun can not be compared to skin color or disability as it is a choice. You may not agree with me saying that, but trust me, I'm one of those people that "can't choose" when it come to disability. I know the difference between a choice and not a choice.

Oh, and no business is forced to comply with ADA laws. In a nutshell, if the structure was built after 1992 and they are open to everyone, then they must make accessibility accommodations.

BTW, this would not apply to the guy who you hire to cut your lawn or anything like it. For someone to be an employee you have to hire them as an employee. Hiring someone to cut your lawn is a service, just like getting a haircut. Last time I checked, you didn't pay your stylist's social security and withhold Federal Taxes. There are guidelines about what constitute an employee and what doesn't.

Businesses are not required to withhold. There's also that pesky $600 per year (IIRC) allowance to not file taxes.

The definition of "employer" is

A person or organization that employs people

So, yes. A person can hire someone to perform a service and that hired person will become their employee.

Hiring a company for a service is different.

Edited April 23, 2011 by strickj

[RobertNashville]

That's not "according to me". That's fact.

No...that's your opinion.

[RobertNashville]

In case you didn't know... I use a wheelchair to get around. I know about these laws, first hand, and on the legal side. Carrying a gun can not be compared to skin color or disability as it is a choice. You may not agree with me saying that, but trust me, I'm one of those people that "can't choose" when it come to disability. I know the difference between a choice and not a choice.

Oh, and no business is forced to comply with ADA laws. In a nutshell, if the structure was built after 1992 and they are open to everyone, then they must make accessibility accommodations.

Businesses are not required to withhold. There's also that pesky $600 per year (IIRC) allowance to not file taxes.

The definition of "employer" is

So, yes. A person can hire someone to perform a service and that hired person will become their employee.

Hiring a company for a service is different.

If you are going to quote me then at least quote ME!

Please don't quote something that someone else said and put my name in place of theirs...in other words, none of the stuff you attributed to me in your post was ever said by me.

You and I both know that I say more than enough things you don't agree with that there is simply no need to attribute things to me that someone else said just so you can disagree with me!

Edited April 23, 2011 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

No...that's your opinion.

I'm still waiting on you to prove me wrong.

Once you find that, then you'll be made a millionaire several times over because you'll have millions of people contacting you because their "rights" to self defense were taken away from them while working a midnight cash register.

Good luck! (and send me some of that money since I was your motivation)

If you are going to quote me then at least quote ME!

Please don't quote something that someone else said and put my name in place of theirs...in other words, none of the stuff you attributed to me in your post was ever said by me.

Thanks.

Dude, chillax!

Why would I purposely do that?

I'm not sure why your name showed up. Maybe a glitch with the muli-quote from the previous post. :shrugs:

It's corrected.

[Worriedman]

Oh, and no business is forced to comply with ADA laws.

Every NEW business building is required to comply with ADA requirements, to a greater or lessor degree, dependent on it's location and the Building Codes that the entity responsible for permitting adheres to. Some States even require compliance in new residential construction. The County, City or State, depending on where an edifice is being constructed and which entity is responsible for inspections and permitting can absolutely tell the owner what electrical, structural, ADA and fire protection must be included (AZ requires fire sprinklers in any new habitation structure, including residential, or even a single person occupancy guard shack) . The business owner has no choice in what they will include, Plans Exams will mark up your drawings and tell you what you MUST provide. IF you would like a Certificate of Occupancy, you will abide by their Codes.

[Sky King]

If you want to see what I feel to be the REAL road block to this bill, read this. As the saying goes, Money talks, and you know the rest.

Study: Memphis-based FedEx has more clout on Capitol Hill than UPS » The Commercial Appeal

Those who oppose this bill can claim anything they want as a reason, but IMHO, it all boils down to money.

[RobertNashville]

...I'm still waiting on you to prove me wrong.

Why don't you try proving me wrong? I think you are confused and believe that just because YOU say something it's right and that's all the proof you need.

Dude, chillax!

Why would I purposely do that?...

"Dude" me all you want (actually, anytime someone stars out a sentence addressing anyone as "Dude" I assume that anything they have to say is pretty unimportant, at best) but this isn't the first instance in this thread where you attributed words to me that I never uttered then went on (and sometimes on and on) to explain how I'm wrong...even if it's an accident (and I assumed it was) it gets pretty damn tiring after a while (especially when you said, I believe two different times, that you were done with the thread - that was probably 20 or 30 posts ago).

You've made your position VERY clear...I think you are wrong and I'm not the only one who thinks so...but right or wrong, no one here is going to change their mind. This thread was started to discuss the status of the bill; not debate, once again whether it should or shouldn't be passed (and yes, I know I'm at least as guilty as anyone here and I apoligize to all for letting myself be goaded into doing so again).

Why don't you concentrate on contacting and put pressure your legislators to express your position; let us do the same to promote our position but let those of us who want to know that status have a thread were we can do that without someone wanting to tell us how wrong we are...how we don't understand the laws...how we don't understand business and how we don't understand rights.

Assuming you are unlikely to let us do that, I'm done with this thread.

Have a nice day.l

Edited April 23, 2011 by RobertNashville

[GKar]

To Sky King's last post: That's been the amusing thing about much of the theoretical rhetoric peppering this thread. The fate of this bill will not be determined by anyone's stance on "rights", "business vs personal" or any of the other buzzwords in the previous 17+ pages of discourse...rather, it will lie pretty much soley upon legislators' interests vis-a-vis the 800lb gorilla. Much of the above has, with regards to the actual bill and its fate, been "Ready-shoot-aim"...

Edited April 23, 2011 by GKar

[Worriedman]

To Sky King's last post: That's been the amusing thing about much of the theoretical rhetoric peppering this thread. The fate of this bill will not be determined by anyone's stance on "rights", "business vs personal" or any of the other buzzwords in the previous 17+ pages of discourse...rather, it will lie pretty much soley upon legislators' interests vis-a-vis the 800lb gorilla. Much of the above has, with regards to the actual bill and its fate, been "Ready-shoot-aim"...

Dead on correct!

[strickj]

Why don't you try proving me wrong? I think you are confused and believe that just because YOU say something it's right and that's all the proof you need.

Ok, sure. How about this story?

Pizza man saved by gun, <br>but fired for packin' heat

Pizza Hut not only took away his "right" to have a gun in his car while on company property, but they also took away his right to do so while off of their property. They also took away his "basic right" to self defense with a do not fight back policy.

Want more proof?

You can continue to mock me and what I say, but that doesn't change that simple truth that what I say is a fact. Actually, it's beyond fact as countless businesses have policies that removes employees' "rights" as a condition of employment.

I'd wager a dollar to a weeble that most retailers have a do not fight back policy which removes the "basic right" to self defense.

The ball is in your court here, Robert. You want to convince anyone that this "is just one mans opinion", then offer up some proof that you do have rights wile on private property...

"Dude" me all you want (actually, anytime someone stars out a sentence addressing anyone as "Dude" I assume that anything they have to say is pretty unimportant, at best) but this isn't the first instance in this thread where you attributed words to me that I never uttered then went on (and sometimes on and on) to explain how I'm wrong...even if it's an accident (and I assumed it was) it gets pretty damn tiring after a while (especially when you said, I believe two different times, that you were done with the thread - that was probably 20 or 30 posts ago).

Well, how about addressing the incorrect post reference when it happens? I have absolutely no reason to purposely accredit your name to other's posts.

Actually, I find it kinda humorous that you would think that.

If you feel that I have in some way wronged you here, then simply report my post.

Why don't you concentrate on contacting and put pressure your legislators to express your position; let us do the same to promote our position but let those of us who want to know that status have a thread were we can do that without someone wanting to tell us how wrong we are...how we don't understand the laws...how we don't understand business and how we don't understand rights.

Assuming you are unlikely to let us do that, I'm done with this thread.

Have a nice day.l

I have contacted my reps. I also have a glimmer of hope that someone reading this thread may have learned something about what rights actually are and what rights they actually have. And maybe someone has seen exactly how this bill infringes on the rights of business and property owners for nothing more then to convenience a very select few. Believe it or not, but I have actually changed my complete position on this matter after realizing all of that since the FL parking lot bill was passed.

[Sky King]

I have contacted my reps. I also have a glimmer of hope that someone reading this thread may have learned something about what rights actually are and what rights they actually have. And maybe someone has seen exactly how this bill infringes on the rights of business and property owners for nothing more then to convenience a very select few. Believe it or not, but I have actually changed my complete position on this matter after realizing all of that since the FL parking lot bill was passed.

Personally your running debate with Robert has actually caused both of you to loose a great deal of credibility with me. I have NEVER contended that a business/employer didn't have property rights. My point has always been that a balance of rights need to be achieved. In cases where two right run head on, a decision has to be made about whose rights are being infringed the most. While I said many posts ago I wasn't going to debate this any more, I have to tell you that if you do some research into the Tennessee General Assembly and The Tennessee Code Anotated, you will find quite a few laws passed on behalf of just a few. I can even give you an example of where a law was passed for just ONE establishment in Tennessee giving it the right to be clasified as a "Restaurant" in order to qualify for a beer and liquor license. The very fact that this law would impact a very few just emphasizes how little an employer's rights are being effected. For most, there would be NO infringement.

And in all reality, based on what I have learned in the last couple of weeks, I have come to the conclusion that those in the General Assembly who oppose this law, VERY FEW of them really give a rats a$$ about property rights. It all comes down to money. Eariler in this thread, I was chastized for saying that small businesses did not matter when I did not mention any of them when referring to comments made by committee members in hearings. That was NOT what I said. I said that big business, (and THEY named a few) were all THEY mentioned. What does that tell you. Big business pours big money into campaigns. If "Bob's Bakery" could put the kind of money into the political pot, they would get the same notice as Bridgestone Firestone, FedEx, UPS, General Tire and so on.

As for the Florida law, you are a bit behind the times. Their law passed a few years ago and has already been challenged and upheld in the Federal Courts.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Sky King

[strickj]

Sky King, I could honestly care less what "credibility" I have with you. All of my posts are to simply point out that no one has rights on private property. I have proved that. No one's rights are colliding with this issue at all. This bill is an invasion of business and private property rights. Plain and simple.

Yeah, let's take away two rights from one group just to convenience a select few with a fell-good bill

[Guest monkeyhumper]

I, for one, welcome our business-killing overlords.

[strickj]

Oh, and the FL law was challenged by FL's business association on the grounds of "an unconstitutional taking of property" and "OSHA safety concerns". Neither one of those issues were convincing enough.

Obviously, property is not being taken by the government with the bill and the judge could not see a safety issue with the latter.

They did not argue the bill being unconstitutional or an infringement of rights, for some damned reason.

[Sky King]

Sky King, I could honestly care less what "credibility" I have with you. All of my posts are to simply point out that no one has rights on private property. I have proved that. No one's rights are colliding with this issue at all. This bill is an invasion of business and private property rights. Plain and simple.

Yeah, let's take away two rights from one group just to convenience a select few with a fell-good bill

You have proved nothing. You have not shown any statutes or ordinances to substanciate the multitude of claims you have made concerning laws, ordinances and tax issues that apply to business. Everything you have stated has been your opinion.

The "taking of rights" to satisfy others is not without presidence.

I started this thread to discuss the imediate progress of HB2021 and the issues causing it's hinderance. But I am dismayed at a moderator of this forum allowing threads being hijacked for the personal debate of two.

I am here for the furtherance of our rights to keep and bear arms and my natural inalienable right to life. I really don't care what you think, NO MAN has the right to deny my right to protect my right to life, I really don't care whose property I may be on at the time.

I will not respond to you any further. Go hijack some other thread.