Did anyone get that letter from ebay about online taxing

Syndil

His questions were rendered moot by his inaccuracies. Comparing closing a loophole in already existing tax code to the Boston tea tax rebellion is ridiculous hyperbole. If you believe closing this loophole is somehow being unfair, then by logical extension the tax code itself is unfair. What you should really be complaining about is use/sales tax, not the fact that by closing this loophole, the gov't (more accurately, state gov'ts) will now be able to collect it in all cases instead of just some.

This new law simply evens the playing field. By not enforcing sales tax collection on out-of-state entities, it punishes smaller businesses (like mine) whose customers are local, and thereby in-state. I personally have lost many sales of hardware/software because clients have flat out told me they would rather buy online (out of state) so they didn't have to pay sales tax. This new law will equal cash in my pocket, and it only negatively affects those who were running afoul of long-existing tax code by not paying use tax. I see absolutely no down side to this.

If you believe sales/use tax is unfair, then move to a state that doesn't collect it, or write your congressmen about it (good luck with that). Obviously having 0% sales/use tax works for some states, but not all.

Syndil

And I'm not sure what eBay wrote in their letter, but if you believe this new law is negatively affecting the little guys... Why is it that the big guys (eBay, Amazon) are making the most noise about it? Screw the big guys. This law needs to pass.

polkfarmboy

Syndil wrote: »

Screw the big guys. This law needs to pass.

You need to pass ...out on the couch

Syndil

Oh I definitely will, later tonight!

F1nut

then by logical extension the tax code itself is unfair.

Exactly. Hence the comparision to the Boston Tea Party. Enough is enough.

Syndil

It would be comparable to the Boston Tea Party if this law going through the senate was a new, somehow unfair tax. This is not a new tax. It's simply one you have been able to easily dodge so far. The time to revolt would have been when sales tax/use tax laws were first created, or any time after that. But to only cry about it now simply because you can't dodge it any more? Sorry, that just seems childish to me. Like a kid getting mad because he was caught stealing from the cookie jar. If it was fair before, it's still fair now. And I'm betting most if not all of you raising complaints pay sales tax on a daily basis without writing a letter to your congressman demanding they be repealed.

And hey, that's the reason we have states to begin with. If you don't like the laws in your state, you can choose another to live in. So if you do think sales/use tax is unfair, you still get no sympathy from me. There are legal ways to avoid paying it.

But as long as I live in a state that charges sales/use tax, everyone should have to pay it. I shouldn't be punished simply because my customers are local. It's already hard enough for me to match the price of some of the bigger retailers, local or otherwise, due to volume pricing. But when I can match their prices, they still get an advantage by not having to charge sales tax? I dare someone to try and make a logical argument as to why that is reasonable.

snow

Syndil wrote: »

His questions were rendered moot by his inaccuracies. Comparing closing a loophole in already existing tax code to the Boston tea tax rebellion is ridiculous hyperbole. If you believe closing this loophole is somehow being unfair, then by logical extension the tax code itself is unfair. What you should really be complaining about is use/sales tax, not the fact that by closing this loophole, the gov't (more accurately, state gov'ts) will now be able to collect it in all cases instead of just some.

This new law simply evens the playing field. By not enforcing sales tax collection on out-of-state entities, it punishes smaller businesses (like mine) whose customers are local, and thereby in-state. I personally have lost many sales of hardware/software because clients have flat out told me they would rather buy online (out of state) so they didn't have to pay sales tax. This new law will equal cash in my pocket, and it only negatively affects those who were running afoul of long-existing tax code by not paying use tax. I see absolutely no down side to this.

If you believe sales/use tax is unfair, then move to a state that doesn't collect it, or write your congressmen about it (good luck with that). Obviously having 0% sales/use tax works for some states, but not all.

Now the truth comes out as to why you feel the way you do, you think incorrectly that if Ebay starts collecting taxes for states that customers will come flocking back to your door that went away previously, that is simply delusional, there is no way that will ever happen for many reasons one is you will never as a small business be able to compete with big business on a level playing field, part of it is the big businesses can purchase the goods on a much larger scale so therefore able to purchase cheaper and be able to sell cheaper. A lot of big businesses are located offshore so they don't pay the taxes you do now and never will no matter if this law is passed. Some do not even stock the items they sell in inventory but purchase as orders come in from warehouses outside the USA.

The only thing thing this law does is make it even harder for individuals and small businesses like yours to compete for online sales. Amazon is pushing for this law because they all ready collect the sales taxes and they would love to have Ebay do the same which would force a lot of small businesses such as yours to dry up and go away completely and would crush Ebay sales thereby making Amazon even more of a force to be reckoned with.


REGARDS SNOW

GospelTruth

Syndil, I get your point. And I don't disagree with your assessment in your given situation.

My comparison to the Boston Tea Party is that people are sick of paying taxes in one form or another. I'm wasn't trying to make a point for point exact comparison. My overall point was that people with the Boston Tea Party didn't want to pay a tax. So they rebelled. Brits called them "criminals", Americans call them heroes. Your viewpoint depends on your perspective. People today don't think the government hears them when they get sick of being taxed for everything. I believe you even said in a round about way that writing your congressman about this won't do any good anyway. So if it won't do any good, I think some people consider it their way to rebel at the enormity of taxes the government charges - wherever they live. You may not agree with that view, but I definitely see that side of the argument.

Does it hurt your business? You stated it does and I have no reason to doubt you. Does it help out other businesses by not paying a sales tax and going out of state? It may help them keep their margins by doing so. Be sure that I understand where you are coming from. I used to travel and do independent consulting. The State of Michigan wanted to enact a sales tax on services (where there was none before). That would have added a 6% premium to the cost of my work. I either charge customers for the service tax, or I eat the cost to match other competitors that didn't have to pay the tax in another state. I either potentially lose customers or make less profit. So I do understand the economics of your situation.

Some folks here are sick of being taxed and look to the lack of a collection of online taxes as a way to say "no more". I see their point. I personally don't see an issue with collecting taxes online for new items - some might not agree on even that point. As I have stated before that collecting for used items is, in my opinion, a shady way to try increase tax revenue. Taxing all items on eBay would tax both used and new goods. I don't think sales tax on used goods is right. You may not agree, and that's fine.

F1nut

snow wrote: »

The only thing thing this law does is make it even harder for individuals and small businesses like yours to compete for online sales. Amazon is pushing for this law because they all ready collect the sales taxes and they would love to have Ebay do the same which would force a lot of small businesses such as yours to dry up and go away completely and would crush Ebay sales thereby making Amazon even more of a force to be reckoned with.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

F1nut

And hey, that's the reason we have states to begin with. If you don't like the laws in your state, you can choose another to live in.

Maybe you should follow your own advice.

obieone

So, if the federal govt. institutes a tax, covered under the ICC, will that be new tax? Like healthcare?

rpf65

obieone wrote: »

So, if the federal govt. institutes a tax, covered under the ICC, will that be new tax? Like healthcare?

This is the point most people don't seem to understand. The Comerace clause does not give the federal government any power or justification to collect taxes for any state. It's that simple. It gives the power to ensure that a state doesn't excessively tax a person, entity, or anosther state excessively. In other words if Alaska doesn't like Texas for whatever reason, they can't tax people/business/governments any more than California.

The tax, in and of itself is only part of the problem. If any government has a problem collecting the taxes it feels is owed to it, it is that governments issue, and that government alone. Think of it like this. I travel to another state, do the tourist thing, purchase a t-shirt, and pay the required sales tax at the point of purchase. I wear the t-shirt, which technically makes it used, and return to my home state. If I have to pay a tax to my home state for the purchase, than to be fair, the other state should refund the tax I paid to it.

Again, since every time a tax issue is being raised, it is only to be fair. So lets be really fair here. If I present proof of identification that I reside in another state, then I should be exempt from every tax that a state/municipality, or any other agency imposes on their citizens. I don't live there, so why should I have to support the services of the people that do.

Like I said, if states feel they are being short-changed/robbed because they aren't recieving whatever taxes for goods sold over the internet, then let them figure out how to collect that tax. The federal government has no business doing this.

tonyb

Gonna agree with Snow on this one. Amazon is looking out for Amazon, nothing new really for any buisness. The sales pitch is always off kilter from reality. State governments need the money, why...how, doesn't matter because they will always need more money. After this tax is imposed and spent, they'll look for something else to tax or raise the tax rate. A continuous sucking machine from the private sector into the public sector. You can spin it, put a different face on it all you want, still comes down to the same old same old.

If states ran with the intentions of staying within a budget, or ran them like a buisness and actually save a few bucks you wouldn't need to tax everything that moves, crawls or even stands still. I hear in Maryland, home to many Polkies, they are going to start taxing rain water. If these people put the same effort in saving a buck that they do in these hair brain taxing ideas we'd all be better off.

markmarc

The interesting part of the eBay letter was their suggestion that companies with under 50 employees be exempt from the tax collection.

Now personally, I buy new online only if the item is not available locally. Small businesses are crucial to local economies and must be supported when they offer good service.

Syndil

snow wrote: »

Now the truth comes out as to why you feel the way you do, you think incorrectly that if Ebay starts collecting taxes for states that customers will come flocking back to your door that went away previously, that is simply delusional, there is no way that will ever happen for many reasons one is you will never as a small business be able to compete with big business on a level playing field, part of it is the big businesses can purchase the goods on a much larger scale so therefore able to purchase cheaper and be able to sell cheaper. A lot of big businesses are located offshore so they don't pay the taxes you do now and never will no matter if this law is passed. Some do not even stock the items they sell in inventory but purchase as orders come in from warehouses outside the USA.

The only thing thing this law does is make it even harder for individuals and small businesses like yours to compete for online sales. Amazon is pushing for this law because they all ready collect the sales taxes and they would love to have Ebay do the same which would force a lot of small businesses such as yours to dry up and go away completely and would crush Ebay sales thereby making Amazon even more of a force to be reckoned with.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I don't care how this law will help Amazon over eBay or vice versa; I'm talking about how it affects me, and it absolutely DOES AFFECT ME. For you to tell me this law will make it harder for my small business to compete? Way to go, Einstein, you're absolutely 100% incorrect, and I think I would know a bit better than you, thanks very much.

eBay is not one of my competitors, but Newegg and Amazon most certainly are. No, I am not an online etailer like they are, but I do rely on my clients buying software licenses and major hardware purchases from me as a large part of my income. When my clients flat out tell me they are not going to buy a software license or a piece of hardware from me because they want to buy it online so they don't have to pay sales tax, that absolutely hurts my business. I do the consulting and tell them what to buy, and I expect them to buy it from me. When they decide to buy it online just to avoid tax, that's a slap in my face, and it's infuriating.

I don't lose a client when this happens--they still rely on my services--but that is taking a hunk of money off my table and putting it into a larger, out-of-state company's. It's bad for small business, bad for the local economy, and bad for the state. It only helps the end consumer, and it shouldn't help them, because they are supposed to be paying USE tax.

Yes, it is difficult for me to price match against a larger volume competitor, but it is not impossible, and it's certainly not "delusional." If that were the case, I wouldn't give a hoot about any of this because I wouldn't be affected.

This law does nothing more than level the playing field. eBay is fighting it because the current system gives them an advantage, but it's an unfair advantage.

sucks2beme

EBAY is just looking out for EBAY. The whole point here is a level playing field.
If one business ducks taxes, then I have a problem with it. Either no one on line pays,
or they all do. Resale shops selling used goods pay taxes. So the concept is hardly new.
They only real way to not pay sales tax is NOT to buy stuff. IF paying taxes gets to you,
just stop clicking the buy button. You bank account will thanks you!
But really, guys. EBAY has been the haven of a lot of mid range retailers avoiding sales tax
and income tax.

snow

Syndil wrote: »

You have no idea what you're talking about. I don't care how this law will help Amazon over eBay or vice versa; I'm talking about how it affects me, and it absolutely DOES AFFECT ME. For you to tell me this law will make it harder for my small business to compete? Way to go, Einstein, you're absolutely 100% incorrect, and I think I would know a bit better than you, thanks very much.

eBay is not one of my competitors, but Newegg and Amazon most certainly are. No, I am not an online etailer like they are, but I do rely on my clients buying software licenses and major hardware purchases from me as a large part of my income. When my clients flat out tell me they are not going to buy a software license or a piece of hardware from me because they want to buy it online so they don't have to pay sales tax, that absolutely hurts my business. I do the consulting and tell them what to buy, and I expect them to buy it from me. When they decide to buy it online just to avoid tax, that's a slap in my face, and it's infuriating.

I don't lose a client when this happens--they still rely on my services--but that is taking a hunk of money off my table and putting it into a larger, out-of-state company's. It's bad for small business, bad for the local economy, and bad for the state. It only helps the end consumer, and it shouldn't help them, because they are supposed to be paying USE tax.

Yes, it is difficult for me to price match against a larger volume competitor, but it is not impossible, and it's certainly not "delusional." If that were the case, I wouldn't give a hoot about any of this because I wouldn't be affected.

This law does nothing more than level the playing field. eBay is fighting it because the current system gives them an advantage, but it's an unfair advantage.

You must have missed the part about the fact that Amazon does collect sales tax from the buyers from your area if they are taking away your customers it has nothing to do with sales tax but if you one day decide to sell your products on Ebay and people buy from you because they are avoiding the sales tax in their area then it will effect you and every other small seller out there. Since you claim you can price match against a larger competitor why are you crying? There are many reasons why people buy online versus going to the local store other than avoiding taxes, one being that for some it is much easier sitting on the couch laptop in hand clicking a mouse and your done versus having to fight traffic and long lines in stores. I give up trying to show you why this law is not nor will not help you because you know it all all ready without even having the information.

Carry on with your bad self


REGARDS SNOW

chumlie

Just my opinion and mine only. I have no problem with the tax. My problem is with the box stores that carry nothing i'm interested in or when they do there isn't a person in sight with any usefull knowledge of product i'm interested in. Only exception being local record shop i deal with. Much easier buying online.

BlueFox

There is an article on this subject in today's SF Chronicle, which I am reading now. It turns out the law eBay is protesting has a $1,000,000 exemption on out of state sales for sellers before they have to start collecting tax. Anybody selling over a million dollars a year is not some average Joe selling his amp.

snow

chumlie wrote: »

Just my opinion and mine only. I have no problem with the tax. My problem is with the box stores that carry nothing i'm interested in or when they do there isn't a person in sight with any usefull knowledge of product i'm interested in. Only exception being local record shop i deal with. Much easier buying online.

I wanted to purchase some ink cartridges for my printer the other day so I get online and look to see if my local Office Max has them in stock, they didnt but I could order them and have them shipped to the store for $35.00 per cartridge next I looked online an lo and behold the same exact brand and model cartridges were for sale at a whopping $8.00 for a two pack of them with free shipping, lets weigh the difference here $70.00 locally with a long wait and the time/gas involved in going to get them when they arrived or buy on Ebay for $8.00 and they are delivered to my door much quicker, Hmmm.... I will let you figure out which choice I made. Of course Syndil would have sold them to me for the $8.00 because he can compete


REGARDS SNOW

F1nut

I hear in Maryland, home to many Polkies, they are going to start taxing rain water.

But only in the largest counties and they are going to base the amount on the size of your roof and driveway saying that these surfaces do not absorb water creating run off, which ends up in the Chesapeake Bay. Really!?! The water that falls on my roof drains into the gutters, then the downspouts and onto the grass where it is absorbed. The way my driveway is situated none of the water flows into the street. In fact, the water from the street ends up being absorbed by my lawn. I'm not paying them a penny.

snow

BlueFox wrote: »

There is an article on this subject in today's SF Chronicle, which I am reading now. It turns out the law eBay is protesting has a $1,000,000 exemption on out of state sales for sellers before they have to start collecting tax. Anybody selling over a million dollars a year is not some average Joe selling his amp.

True not many of us Audiofools buying or selling a mill or more in gear a year. But there are a substantial number of small businesses that do sell more than a mill a year retail online that's less than 100k a month which if this law passes will make it even harder for them to compete with the likes of Amazon.


REGARDS SNOW

BlueFox

F1nut wrote: »

But only in the largest counties and they are going to base the amount on the size of your roof and driveway saying that these surfaces do not absorb water creating run off, which ends up in the Chesapeake Bay. Really!?! The water that falls on my roof drains into the gutters, then the downspouts and onto the grass where it is absorbed. The way my driveway is situated none of the water flows into the street. In fact, the water from the street ends up being absorbed by my lawn. I'm not paying them a penny.

My father lives on the Wye River next to the bay. One time when I was visiting I watched a show on MD PBS that showed the runoff that goes into the bay. It was actually pretty amazing and it starts in PA. Maybe they should also be taxed.

heiney9

snow wrote: »

Amazon all ready collects state taxes on online sales
REGARDS SNOW

Maybe in Canada. Amazon only collects in a few states where it has a physical presence (distribution centers). Otherwise they DO NOT collect sales tax.

H9

heiney9

Also coming is tax based on how many miles you drive a year to replace what they are saying is an outdated gasoline tax. In Illinois we pay the highest tax on gasoline outside of CA. As public transportation is used more and cars get more efficient now the tax per gallon isn't enough. It never ends.

H9

tonyb

F1nut wrote: »

But only in the largest counties and they are going to base the amount on the size of your roof and driveway saying that these surfaces do not absorb water creating run off, which ends up in the Chesapeake Bay. Really!?! The water that falls on my roof drains into the gutters, then the downspouts and onto the grass where it is absorbed. The way my driveway is situated none of the water flows into the street. In fact, the water from the street ends up being absorbed by my lawn. I'm not paying them a penny.

I could be wrong, but isn't most rivers/streams there in the first place to collect rain water ? Someone has to enlighten me on this one because it makes absolutely no sence at all. I install sewers for a living, every storm sewer flows to a river/stream/lake. Which means all the chemicals and junk from your street has a direct path. Rain runoff from roofs that hits the ground gets filtered by nature. Those prestine lakes you see pics of all the time out in the middle of nowhere get filtered naturaly.

From an environmental stand point, the soap from washing your car in your driveway or anything else going into a sewer has a direct path to your natural waterways. There's just no way to filter it given the sheer volume of water, especially in urban areas. If there's a culprit at hand, environmentally speaking, it has to be local governments and their planing. Here in Chicago when it rains hard like it recently did, we dump raw sewage into lake Michigan. They don't get taxed/fined. Yet in another month thousands will go swimming in that.

If the goal is to protect our natural waterways and still maintain rain water runoff, then your best bet is to copy nature and allow for some kind of bog filtration along rivers and streams as best we can. How a tax on your roof/driveway helps that goal beats me.

tonyb

Let me expand some here because the idea of natural filtration is nothing new. The reason why most big cities don't incorporate any natural filtration along waterways is because the land won't generate taxes. It's best to put a highrise building ontop of the banks of a waterway and generate premium taxes. The use of land.....premium land to boot, has always been to generate taxes. Damn the rest of the concerns. Just the way it is. But to now say it's that individual homeowner with a roof thats doing the damage is pure nonsense.

City planing has alot to do with this. A big suburb south of me, Naperville Illinois, had a downtown area like many others. Kinda blah but had a good sized river branch running threw it and an old rock quarry. They turned the whole area into a giant bog filter with natural walkways and turned that unsightly quarry into a natural filtered community swimming pool complete with sand volleyball too. Then built up the shops around there. Summertime the place is packed. They turned what once was an afterthought into a place that people actually want to go. As a result more people frequent the shops generating....more taxes coming in the door. Hello !!!!

billbillw

No letter from Ebay for me. Probably because I've given up selling there. My last sale was a nightmare and the fees are beyond ridiculous now.

falconcry72

billbillw wrote: »

No letter from Ebay for me. Probably because I've given up selling there. My last sale was a nightmare and the fees are beyond ridiculous now.

I do very well on ebay, even with the fees.

It's all about knowing your audience. For some stuff I go straight to ebay, other stuff is straight to CL, other stuff is straight to CP, and other stuff is straight to friends.

I only use ebay if it's for an item that I'm willing to start at 99 cents, with no reserve, and see what happens. That generally means it needs to be an item that is somewhat rare, but not TOO rare, it needs to have a consistent completed auction history, it needs to be something I can ship, and it needs to be in abnormally good/complete condition. An item that meets all of those criteria will bring in A LOT more money by doing a no reserve auction than it would doing Buy It Now, or just throwing it on CL.

Of course every sale is different, and sometimes you get burned, but overall I'm ahead in the count.

F1nut

tonyb wrote: »

How a tax on your roof/driveway helps that goal beats me.

Here you go.....

Consider all the ways we’re taxed. When we’re born (birth certificate), when we die (death certificate), when we make money (income tax), when we spend money (sales tax), when we own property (property tax), when we sell property (capital gains tax), when we go to a concert or ball game (amusement tax), when we own a vehicle (license, registration, tolls, gas tax) and special taxes on cell phones, tobacco, alcohol, energy, etc. Then, when we die, they tax our income all over again (death tax). Heck, they even tax our bowel movements (flush tax).

But if you thought they ran out of ways to tax us you badly misjudged our lawmakers’ creativity. Get ready for their newest invention, the rain tax. Here’s what’s going on:

In 2010 the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency ordered Maryland to reduce stormwater runoff into the Chesapeake Bay so that nitrogen levels fall 22 percent and phosphorus falls 15 percent from current amounts. The price tag: $14.8 billion.

And where do we get the $14.8 billion? By taxing so-called “impervious surfaces,” anything that prevents rain water from seeping into the earth (roofs, driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.) thereby causing stormwater run off. In other words, a rain tax.

And who levies this new rain tax? Witness how taxation, like rain, trickles down through the various pervious levels of government until it reaches the impervious level — me and you.

The EPA ordered Maryland to raise the money (an unfunded mandate), Maryland ordered its 10 largest counties to raise the money (another unfunded mandate) and, now, each of those counties is putting a local rain tax in place by July 1.

So, if you live in Montgomery Prince George’s, Howard, Anne Arundel, Carroll, Harford, Charles, Frederick, Baltimore counties or Baltimore city, you’ll be paying a rain tax on your next property tax bill.

Well, you ask, “How on earth can the government know how much impervious surface I own?” Answer: It’s not on earth, it’s in the sky. Thanks to satellite imagery and geographic information systems, Big Brother can measure your roof and driveway (and you thought drones were only used for killing terrorists).

OK, once the counties raise this money, how is it spent? The state law is kind of squishy. It can be spent to build and maintain stream and wetland restoration projects. And, of course, a lot of it will go to “monitoring, inspection, enforcement, review of stormwater management plans and permit applications and mapping of impervious surfaces.” In other words, hiring more bureaucrats to administer the rain tax program.

It can also be spent on “public education and outreach” (whatever that means) and on “grants to nonprofit organizations” (i.e. to the greenies who pushed the tax through the various levels of government).

If I asked you to guess which Maryland county is already levying a rain tax on its citizens, you’d correctly answer “Montgomery,” the “more taxes, please” jurisdiction that collected a $17 million rain tax last year. So, since Montgomery County already has a rain tax in place (but only on residences) let’s take a peek at the future. Here’s how Montgomery County is spending some of its rain tax:

“(The county) holds workshops and training events to help residents understand how various projects work. Projects such as rain gardens, conservation landscaping, rain barrels and cisterns, drywells and tree planting are then offered to be installed on properties that qualify, based on the County’s assessment.”

So, I’m supposed to pay a rain tax so the county can train me how to plant a tree, which they’ll give me if, in its view, I qualify? Have we all gone mad?

According to state officials, the 10 rain tax counties must raise $482 million a year to finance the $14.8 billion stormwater cleanup bonds by 2025. About 75 percent will come from homeowners and about 25 percent will come from non-residential property owners.

Credits and exemptions must be granted to property owners who already meet stormwater “best practices” standards. And the county governments can phase-in the rain tax levels (to get them past the next election). Most homeowners will pay around $100 a year (less if you live in an apartment or condo). But the rates may double or triple later.

It’s the nonresidential owners who are getting hit, annually, with five- and six-figure amounts because they own such large rooftops and parking lots (car dealerships, shopping centers, malls, office buildings, warehouses, etc.). Disclosure: My house has a driveway and a (sometimes) impervious roof, and I work for, and partly own, a commercial real estate company.

But homeowners are going to pay the rain tax three times. Once, on their homes. A second time because commercial leases force tenants pay the landlord’s property taxes, which the tenants will, then, pass on to their customers. And a third time as church members or supporters of nonprofit hospitals, private schools and charities.

You see, state lawmakers exempted government-owned property from the rain tax but imposed it on religions and nonprofits (which own big roofs and parking lots).

“What we are waking up to is that a number of counties are moving in the direction of a significant and very unexpected financial impact on organizations that ordinarily are not taxed because they’re nonprofit organizations that provide services to the community and work on very limited budgets,” says Mary Ellen Russell of the Maryland Catholic Conference.

Sorry, the environment comes first. In life, only three things are certain — death, taxes and rain.

Blair Lee is CEO of the Lee Development Group in Silver Spring and a regular commentator for WBAL radio. His column appears Fridays in Business Gazette. His email address is blair@leedg.com.