Aside from what others have said, keep excise tax in mind. I believe all towns in MA collect that once a year. It can be very heavy on a new car purchase (like $1000), but trails off fairly quickly in subsequent years.

Thank you for taking the time for reading the bill and though our opinions differ I'm thankful you took the time.

Edit: I wanted to go further into depth to why this restrict act is dangerous, first lets examine the quote

"To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to review and prohibit certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries, and for other purposes."

This is the first sentence into the bill and there are multiple concerning factors that we must talk about. Firstly, The review of certain transactions between persons in the US and foreign adversaries and then the prohibition of said information.

Review: The review of information has seemingly no limit to the power it holds to access almost all information that is found on the internet or is powered by the internet,

example: (quote from "section 3. Addressing information and communication technology products and services that pose undue or unacceptable risk.")

"In general.—The Secretary, in consultation with the relevant executive department and agency heads, is authorized to and shall take action to identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate, including by negotiating, entering into, or imposing, and enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that the Secretary determines—

(1) poses an undue or unacceptable risk of—

(A) sabotage or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications technology products and services in the United States;

(B) catastrophic effects on the security or resilience of the critical infrastructure or digital economy of the United States;

(C) interfering in, or altering the result or reported result of a Federal election, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission; or

(D) coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission; or

(2) otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons."

This quote (sorry for the text wall I dont want to make it seem I am taking things out of context or for lack of better words clip champing), are the reasons given that by the bill why the SoC would be given the power instated by the bill, the main issues reside in the portions I highlighted, frankly the main issue is the fact that the clauses in the bill are too vague and give the US jurisdiction over all information it deems a "Undue or unacceptable risk". Famous in the history of the united states, it is not afraid to lie for its own benefits i.e War in Iraq, Manifest Destiny, etc

Prohibition: This bill gives access to anything that even involves the internet to the government and SoC, Example Quotes taken from section 5:

"any software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to data hosting or computing service that uses, processes, or retains, or is expected to use, process, or retain, sensitive personal data with respect to greater than 1,000,000 persons in the United States at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review or the Secretary initiates review of the covered transaction, including— (A) internet hosting services; (B) cloud-based or distributed computing and data storage; (C) machine learning, predictive analytics, and data science products and services, including those involving the provision of services to assist a party utilize, manage, or maintain open-source software; (D) managed services; and (E) content delivery services;"

"software designed or used primarily for connecting with and communicating via the internet that is in use by greater than 1,000,000 persons in the United States at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review or the Secretary initiates review of the covered transaction, including—"

(A) desktop applications;

(B) mobile applications;

(C) gaming applications;

(D) payment applications; or

(E) web-based applications; or

(7) information and communications technology products and services integral to—

(A) artificial intelligence and machine learning;

(B) quantum key distribution;

(C) quantum communications;

(D) quantum computing;

(E) post-quantum cryptography;

(F) autonomous systems;

(G) advanced robotics;

(H) biotechnology;

(I) synthetic biology;

(J) computational biology; and

(K) e-commerce technology and services, including any electronic techniques for accomplishing business transactions, online retail, internet-enabled logistics, internet-enabled payment technology, and online marketplaces.** "

Again sorry for the text wall, But this is a absurd amount of access to again "Undue or unacceptable risk", this would allow the US and SoC (who isn't even a democratic elected position of the United States Government) to censor information and applications it doesn't like. Right the gaze is on tiktok but after tiktok what else would be banned? there is no limit to the power that the bill presents,

thank you everyone for reading.

This is why we should get are SALT back. It’s not fair to be double paying for us and for Tennessee,

A lot of wild claims in that TikTok. The bill may be overly broad, but there's "overly broad," and then there's "the government can go through your Insta messages and censor them and they'll be watching the cameras in your home." Unlike what that dude really really wants us to believe, that is 100% hyperbole based on my reading of the bill. Willing to be proven wrong. I may think TikTok is an abhorrence that should be banned for the benefit of humanity, but the US government is no angel.

Will the TikTokers do their own research, though? No, they'll just take what this guy says as gospel truth.

Not sure we can blame 49 other states for how we don't take care of our own crap.

[deleted]

I love being able to say I’m from MA. It’s like a golden nugget in this sea of shit we call a country, however it’s worth noting that that golden nugget is still submerged in a sea of shit

By allowing time for the community to speak they are creating a public forum. And then if they do that they can’t restrict certain kinds of speech but allows others. If they don’t let anyone speak no public forum. They have no obligation to create a public forum. Neither Mass law or the Constitution require it.

Don’t plan on trading in but this is new to me!

Polite but firm.

It will surely be a law suit but they are on pretty firm ground of content neutral time, place and manner restrictions then. As long as they enforce the time restrictions equally.

I mean, what do you expect with people in anything higher than town government.

That is quite a view.

Least aggressive 2a supporter

[deleted]

Have them stand there with their shotgun while the politician reads every letter.

I think the more important thing is that it's in public.

If someone shows up and states their grievance and I think they're kinda cuckoo, eh.... I probably support the board in ignoring them.

If someone shows up and has some great points and the board ignores them.... I want to keep that in mind next election.

It really sucks if free speech gets de facto limited to private channels; we lose all the other benefits of it being in public.

Fair distinction.

The thing is, I genuinely have been impressed with my local boards. We have a lot of competent, hard working, level headed people on them. I think they usually make a lot of solid decisions, and when I disagree, I still very much see where they're coming from.

Like, my local politics isn't crazytown bananapants, like some can get. (Ok, the school board has been a little, in the past. But definitely not like, board of health, which is one of the ones pulling Citizen's Time.)

I don't think this is a power play, I think they're just panicking at the idea of someone showing up, really crossing some serious lines, and not feeling like they have the right to stop or limit it.

But.... that doesn't make my losing Citizen's Time access in a bunch of places any more palatable. Well-intentioned or not, it's an important access point.

They have to hear. Listening isn't mandatory.

True. But they have to listen.

They're not required to give any weight to spoken words either.

Are you trading too? If so, the sales tax is calculated on your out-of-pocket price. So, if the new car is $40,000 and they give you $18,000 for your trade, you only pay sales tax on $22,000.

but for some reason has dogshit transportation networks...

Except the part where the chief admitted to the incidents on record