Here comes the Internet sales tax grab
State governments — now suffering from spending binges, fiscal mismanagement, and exploding budgets — are starving for new tax revenue. Brick-and-mortar stores and the commercial real estate lobby — reeling from the bad economy — are desperate for a leg up on online competition. They’ve teamed up to renew their years-long push for Congress to effectively impose Internet sales taxes and turn online retailers into tax collectors. A bill will reportedly be introduced on the Hill this week by GOP Sen. Mike Enzi and Democrat Rep. Bill Delahunt.
The New York Post sums up the possible legislative implications with a helpful graphic:
Do members of Congress really want to facilitate a new tax increase right now? The state government/brick-and-mortar lobby are using a “fairness” argument to defend the proposal. But many of the same commercial real estate developers now demanding tax equity themselves received preferential tax treatment and subsidies. And what about President Obama’s promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families making under $250,000? Where is the revenue neutrality? And where does this end?
The pro-tax forces think they’ll have an easy time ramming their Internet sales tax legislation through.
Tea Party activists, are you listening?
***
From CNET, a look at how the pro-tax forces’ simplification proposal is not what it seems:
The final legislation is expected to be introduced by Sen. Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, and Rep. Bill Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, who have championed similar proposals in the past. Delahunt’s office on Wednesday confirmed he was interested; Enzi’s did not respond.
On the other side are the Direct Marketing Association, the Electronic Retailing Association, and companies including eBay, L.L. Bean, and Overstock.com. One of their biggest objections to the idea of collecting sales taxes on out-of-state shipments is the dizzying complexity of state laws.
Take candy, which would seem to be a straightforward item to tax. It isn’t. During a 2003 discussion of tax policy, a representative of Indiana, James Turner, noted that a proposed definition of candy would have taxed the Milky Way Midnight candy bar but not the original Milky Way bar.
But further investigation showed that Turner’s counter-proposal would have treated “certain flavors of Pop Tarts” and Cookies and Twix Crunchy Cookie Bars as candy–but not Cookies and Snickers Crunchy Cookie Bars. Peanut butter Girl Scout cookies would be candy, but Thin Mints or Caramel deLites would be classified as food.
Bizarre distinctions like this, coupled with the existence of more than 7,000 different tax agencies, are why the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that out-of-state retailers generally couldn’t be obligated to collect sales taxes unless Congress changes the law…
…”The states are desperate for new revenue and I think they realize they’re straying far from the simplification they originally promised,” said Steve DelBianco, executive director of NetChoice, which counts as members AOL, eBay, NewsCorp, Oracle, Verisign, and Yahoo. “That creates an urgency on their part–to get the federal mandate before it becomes clear they have no intention to simplify.”
“They have no real intention of simplifying or compensating sellers for the burdens of collecting,” DelBianco said. “It’s a shell game.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- New York’s Tax Debacle | NEOAVATARA
- American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009! Revised and Updated « Pronk Palisades
- Tea Party activists, are you listening? » Here comes the Internet sales tax grab | Right Voices
- He Doesn’t Get It: Axelrod Joins ‘Tea Party Bashing’ Bandwagon « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- What is wrong with Michelle Malkin? | THE BIPARTREPORT
- It Moved! Tax It! « Vets On The Watch
- Random-American » Taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes, etc., ad infinitum…
- JFK More like Reagan than Obama and Democrats « Jim Blazsik
- Taxing The Internet « Jane Q. Republican
- Lipreading A Lost Art In Congress « Justbkuz
- EPA to Regulate CO2 as a Pollutant … Earth to EPA: CO2 IS A NUTRIENT! | The Great Illuminator
- Good Grief. Next Up, the Internet Sales Tax
- No tax increases for those making under $250,000 eh? Well, lets hope if you purchase anything over the internet, you make over $250,000 because the sales tax is going up! | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Feds to tax internet to bolster state revenues - osmoothie
- Random Thoughts » Here comes the Internet sales tax grab
- The Internet Sales Tax | Little Miss Attila
- Michelle Malkin » Here comes the Internet sales tax grab
- Here come your higher taxes | Babalú Blog: an island on the net without a bearded dictator
- Confessions of a Pilgrim - GOP Senator Mike Enzi to co-sponsor bill to bring sales tax to Online Sales
- The Weekly Claw 4-21-09 - AllMilitary.com's Military Blog
- Tuesday burning | And Still I Persist
- Internet Tax: Michelle O’s Reaction « Mark Epstein
- Obama’s Plan: Shut Off Free Speech by Shutting Off Internet, Talk Radio and Fox News « Peace and Freedom Global Future
- How come politicians never campaign on these things? « Right Minded Online
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Tea Party
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularDoug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsHot Air
» 3rd quarter GDP 2.8%, not 3.5%Mudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
Aren’t most taxes? Take the cigarette tax: this tax will cost KY tobacco growers and KY-based cigarette companies millions in sales and taxes, translating to fewer jobs and less money to the state’s rev dept, translating to more KY farmers, tobacco pickers, et al with children needing S-CHIP and less money in the gov coffers to pay for it. It’s a vicious cycle and an abuse in taxing a legal product.
Iblis,
Actually that is kinda a great example of what I am talking about. If the government raises the price of a postage stamp 2 cents, are people here really going to argue that that is somehow Obama breaking his no tax increase promise?
No. Because that is stupid. Or actually many here may argue that. But you would be stupid to do so.
Think of it as an upward adjustment of an existing tax. That way, it’s not an increase and it’s not a new tax.
See, you dumb common folks keep trying to take things at face value and apply logic to them. Instead, try to find a way where the promise isn’t broken and where Obama has delivered all that he promised. If all that fails, have a nice glass of grape Flavor-Aid. It turns your lips blue!
I would support taxing internet purchases ONLY if it were part of a national consumption tax that everyone pays; and then only if the income tax were repealed.
I’m stupid for being a stickler who expects exact wording by our president on a similar notion that bit G.H.W. Bush in the keister back in ‘92. So that’s the thanks I get for constructive criticism. You’re welcome.
Gotta run. I need some smokes to provide some money for the children. Okay, not really. My carton of CHIP fundraising cookies will last me a couple more days before I’m hungry for more. I just wanted to throw in another dash of sarcasm. Later.
You’re a walking, talking embodiment of the saying that common sense ain’t so common. You argue like a lawyer, which is defacto evidence that you’re full of ..it. I’ll bet that 10 years ago you were debating the meaning of the word “is”, and insisting that Bubba was absolutely correct. Assuming, of course, that you were old enough to talk 10 years ago. Certainly you demonstrate the intellect of a 12-year-old today.
This reminds me – the Post Office is going under due to email. How long before some clown in Congress wants to charge you forty-two cents per email?
Enzi- Delahunt syndrome: I got that on the lawn one spring–took the whole summer to get rid of it. Grass clippings had to be bagged–too smelly and vulgar to mulch just like “reaching across the isle” schemes.
CO2 Producer: how far are you from the border? I prefer tax free cigarettes– but I send the little darlins’ in the SCHIP program faith healer videos just to be fair.
Wow, big deal…so Obama cut taxes that yield $8 a paycheck. Let’s not all spend that in one place!
That pathetic “tax cut” will quickly go into the negative once the Internet tax (among other sales taxes, local taxes, fat tax, cig tax, everything else you can tax upon tax) goes into effect.
And knowing this libtard congress who loves taxes, this bill will probably get passed.
txvet, please.
Common sense says that if Obama is talking about no tax increases for people under 250K he is talking about INCOME taxes (and income related taxes). You people are the ones being purposely obtuse and twisting something that should be perfectly obvious (especially considering that ALL of the examples given were INCOME related taxes and considering theses comments were made concurrent with is public support of S-CHIP) into something else to make some stupid political point.
Common sense informs anyone who has it that that is either a stupid argument or a lie.
Everyone here is free to choose…
On April 20th, 2009 at 4:34 pm, chapoutier said:
What do you mean, “you people?”
Again: I don’t think anyone here gives a damn what Obama promised or not, you are the one being obtuse and ridiculous.
What matters is that all of these combined taxes are tyrannical.
Since you can’t argue that they aren’t, you just try to argue semantics.
Silly collectivist lawyer, lemmiwinks is for Bea Arthur and Richard Gere.
Did you know the average American makes about $32,000 a year, which, all else being equal would lead to a federal income tax burden of about $3,000. 8 time 50 is $400, which is equal to a 13.3% tax cut. Why do you not support a 13.3% tax cut?
The economic law of substitution:
When faced with alternative sources for the same or equivalent goods or services, rational market participants will elect the lower-priced option.
It works every time it’s tried…
What the new taxes mean is that the internet vendors will either move their operations to an alternative, non-taxed state…
or watch their businesses die on the vine as consumers exercise their option of purchasing from a non-taxed vendor.
I make a practice of NOT buying from Texas vendors on the internet. I get a 8.25% discount on every item I buy that way.
“If you torture numbers enough, they will tell you anything.”
If you want to point to which numbers are tortured or inaccuate in any way, I’d be happy to listen.
You did it for us.
Wasn’t it the female James Brown (Michelle Obama) that told us that a $600 stimulus wasn’t enough to even buy a pair of earrings…???
These taxes have nothing to do with the location of the vendor and everything to do with the location of the purchaser. As corona said before, you are already SUPPOSED to pay sales tax on online purchases. Its just that the vast majority of people don’t and going through the online sellers is the only way to get compliance.
Cute evasion.
My comment stands.
You just confirmed it with a welter of needless blather.
All I am asking is you clearly point out, for all us slow folk here, which number I tortured or misrepresented. Not that hard. Come on. Be brave.
Chap, we will not really know if this is a tax cut until next year. All that has happened is a lowering of the withholding. We may be in for a rude surprise.
The subject of my comment was the verity of the law of substitution.
You went into some riff about the wonderfulness of Obama’s tax cut, spinning the numbers (all good lawyer stuff) to support your very narrow point about income tax.
I countered with a question/comment about Shellie Obama’s observation that $600 wasn’t enough to buy a pair of earrings, which you were too gutless to acknowledge or answer.
You have led a merry chase trying to run people with common sense into a “only income tax” chute.
All those people with a lick of common sense know that income taxes…onerous and anti-democratic as they are…are but a fraction of the tax burden THE ONE plans on imposing on us.
Of course, so do you…but you like the collectivist urge, and approve of the MASSIVELY heavier tax burden that Obama’s perfidy will impose.
There…
No. It is not just a lowering of the withholding. It is a tax credit on taxes otherwise owed that is issued in the form of either a lowering of withholding or a credit you can claim outright on your taxes if withholding is not adjusted.
Translation: if you don’t pay taxes, it’s a welfare check from THE ONE…
obtained by taking it from its owners…
you know, the people who earned it…
For years I kept hearing:
Tax breaks for the wealthy.
Tax breaks for the wealthy.
Tax breaks for the richest Americans.
Blah blah blah.
SCHIP is a TAX ON THE POOR!
Your pointless (and it was pointless)comment about MO came AFTER you accused me of manipulating some number, bucko. Of course, for some $400 is nothing. But for the average american it is a significant reduction in income tax. Which was my point.
And in all your screed about me above, you discuss everything under the sun EXCEPT that magic number or numbers I am torturing in my income tax cut analysis. I suppose that is because you can’t.
Chap, call it what you want. If the rates are raised the lower withholding means nothing. I could have done the same thing by claiming more dependants.
But for the average american it is a significant reduction in income tax. Which was my point.
Because it positively corresponds to increases in prices and unemployment.
In short, putting a couple hundred dollars in a few M1 money pockets is not worth the cost of more people on welfare and paying more for bread and electricity.
No. Key difference is that if one were to simply reduce withholding (which is what you implied), one would need to see an affirmative reduction in tax rate by Congress in order for it to be a true cut. On the other hand if one issues a credit in the form of a reduction in withholding, if Congress does nothing, it is a cut.
Not only is it a tax credit, it is a refundable tax credit, meaning that it can reduce your tax liability below zero. The only issue that any here would have with this tax cut is that it applies to those who do not pay any taxes.
The torture of your numbers is that your mythical average American making $32k does not seem to have any children or any other tax reducing credits that might result in the making work pay credit giving money to someone that has paid no taxes.
I have a tax evading relation that only claims his wife’s $20k income. He was borrowing money a few months ago promising to repay it with his $7500 tax refund. I cannot imagine that withholding runs around 40%. It must be all of those “tax cuts” for which his family is “eligible.”
On April 20th, 2009 at 5:10 pm, chapoutier said:
Back in your cage, Mr. Lemmiwinks!
How about if we discuss if the STATE has the RIGHT to TAKE that such much money to begin with?
FICA, SS, Medicare, Local, State, etc…
No one is going to give you (or the CNN reporter) brownie points for $400 “credits” or “refunds” when the average taxpayer has to work for four or five months out of the year to meet our tax obligations.
Silly collectivist lawyer.
Unsubstantiated? Are you an idiot or just play one on TV? What is unsubstantiated? The amount of the cut? Nope. Can’t be that seeing as how I actually gave the numbers. Are we quibbling about the meaning of the term “significant”? Tell you what, lets ask 100 people if they think 13.3% is significant or not. It may not be as much as they want, but that is not the measure of significance.
Which is totally irrelevant because that is not the type of person I was claiming to talk about. YOU introduce a totally pointless comment to my argument and then accuse me of ignoring it?
I never claimed to speak for the average person. I simply threw out some numbers that you claim I “tortured” yet seem unalble to enunciate how.
HAHA! Now there is a great example of an unsubstantiated conclusory statement. Thanks for showing us how its really done.
On April 20th, 2009 at 5:26 pm, chapoutier said:
Bureaucrat.
How about NO income tax?
Think about how much money and time and resources are wasted SHOVING THAT KIND OF TRIVIAL RED-TAPE GARBAGE INTO THAT TINY LITTLE BRAIN OF YOURS?
Thank goodness now they have to work 13.3% less days than they otherwise would.
Soooooo….you claim I am torturing my numbers by NOT taking into accoun that the $400 might actually represent a HIGHER percentage reduction in their tax burden?
Hey, thanks. I guess I was torturing those numbers.
On April 20th, 2009 at 5:38 pm, chapoutier said:
Sure. I believe it. Uh-huh. Let me just read through the bill in triplicate and make notes, cross-referencing with tax code 610, and check with my CPA and my tax attorney…
Back into your hole, Lemmiwinks! I’ll send you a postcard of Bea Arthur.
On April 20th, 2009 at 5:40 pm, chapoutier said:
You’re torturing something, anyways. But as a libertarian, I believe that your private life is your own business. Just keep the leather away from me, thanks.
Actually this WAS a torturing of the numbers as I believe that “Tax Day” stuff takes into account all taxes, not just income and not just federal. So it would not be a 13.3% decease in days. But a decrease nonetheless.
My apologies.
On April 20th, 2009 at 5:43 pm, chapoutier said:
If you are apologizing for being a defender of this tyrannical form of taxation, then I accept.
“It is a tax credit on taxes otherwise owed that is issued in the form ”
Oh, you mean like a refund on Social Security and Medicare taxes! (FYI, the EITC started out as such and has blossomed into an ever expanding welfare program since then as politicians use it to buy votes at the expense of others.
Which means those getting these sorts of tax credits/refunds aren’t paying into either Medicare or Social Security, at least to the extent that their payments are being credited back to them.
And of course, they’ll expect full Social Security and Medicare entitlements when they come eligible, even though they may have hardly paid into them.
It’s a good steal if you can get it — but that doesn’t make it honest nor does it promote a society of folks with good morals.
On April 20th, 2009 at 5:43 pm, chapoutier said:
Thank you master for decreasing the number of days I must work, you are such a kind and benevolent slave master, thank you, thank you, oh thank you.
Please sir, may I have some more gruel?
Ummm…where did I say I didn’t support a tax cut? I support a tax cut for ALL. Considering the ridiculous amount we pay in income taxes, add to that the alternative minimum tax (because they think paying 36% is not enough, so they jack it up close to 40%. And we don’t make a 7-figure income, as we are small business owners.
So, where is MY tax cut? Add to that a jacked up income tax here in CA to over 10%.
OK, now I’m paying 50% in just INCOME taxes. Add to that everything else, and it adds to about 60%.
And people like YOU think I’m rich and don’t pay enough.
So to answer your question, I love tax cuts…unfortunately, all I get is PAYING taxes to support OTHER people’s tax cuts.
GET IT???????
Chaps: Average American income = $32K
False–see U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Chaps: Tax liability is X
False–there is no way to compute the income tax liability for an “average” American tax payer. Too many variables have to be computed, and Chaps never begins to provide them (i.e., the average family of four, with two children, an income of X, taking standard deductions, etc.)
Chaps: The Obama redistribution results in exactly 13.3% lower income taxes for an “average” American.
False–again there is no such thing, and the truth of the matter is that the delta in income tax would have to be expressed in a range of percentages. For some, it could be a 100% decrease in liability. For still others, it would result in a $400 unearned windfall, taken from producers who earned it.
Chaps: $400.OO represents a “substantial” cut in taxes for the average American
DATA is required to define the “average” American.
DATA is required to know what the “average” American would find a “significant” tax cut.
DATA is required to determine the average American considers $400.00 “significant”.
DATA would be required to know if the “average” American, when informed of the other, hidden taxes imposed on him/her by the Obama administration policies, considered themselves to have had a “tax cut”.
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE from the First Lady (and James Brown look-a-like) shows that $400.00 is insignificant, and without effect as an economic stimulus.
FACT; there is no Constitutional mandate for the Federal tax system to act in any redistributive scheme.
Bottom line: Chaps has tried to infuse this thread with a pant-load of BS. He has tortured numbers, published falsehoods, and worked diligently to deceive here.
Check the above assertions.
Treat him accordingly.
The tax burden is constant, so it would not increase the percentage of reduction. It might increase the return on investment though.
I was just playing with a turbo tax calculator. Avg American making $32k, having $3k in withholdings, with 2 kids and paying $100/mo for childcare would get a tax refund of $5450. Since this is an ‘08 calculator, that refund would be $400 higher in ‘09.
That would be -$2450 in taxes.
I googled average income and found $50,233. Then I googled average tax rate and found 20.7%. Doing the math shows that he average income will pay $10,398 in tax. Getting $400 back a year equates to 4% of the prior tax. Then I googled inflation rate and saw an average of 3.9%. Rounding implies that the cost of goods went up the same amount as my “tax cut”.
Since printing money to pay back all those voters who voted for Obama and will mean increased inflation, I argue that his policies have resulted in less income to me no matter how you slice it.
Big difference. Like the saying goes, “Figures often lie and liars often figure”.
Go figure.
Tortured numbers:
A 13.3% tax cut sounds great, but I won’t get one. It is strictly for people in that income bracket. It’s a bit like the Bush ‘tax cut for the wealthiest X per cent’. While technically correct, both statements are misleading. Bush’s tax cuts were for everyone. I’m all for the 13.3% tax cut, until I find out I don’t qualify.
Unfortunately, this isn’t a tax increase. It is a tax compliance measure. All the state sales taxes are actually “sales and use” taxes: if you order something from out of state, you are obliged by law to pay the tax yourself. States with sales taxes typically have a line on the state income tax return for “Use Tax” (it’s line 49 on California 540).
These guys have never found a tax they didn’t like (or a tax they wouldn’t hike).
Have you seen the proposals about changing people’s water bills to a “per usage” method? The PER FLUSH TAX.
As if that isn’t totally apropos.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Here is my contribution:
The video CNN doesn’t want you to see
chap is one stupid mofo. A tax on you is not the same as “your taxes”, eh?
To chap a tax you can choose to avoid by not buying things isn’t a tax, even though it’s called a sales tax.
Never mind if it has been cheaper to buy those things w/o the tax. To chap, if it’s more expensive with the tax, just don’t buy it!!! That, to frackards like chap is “the free market”!!!!
LOL!! What a frackin ditz.
If the Obamarhoids ever pass cap-and-trade, we’ll be sure to hear from chap that THAT isn’t a tax on energy.
After all, all those utilities don’t “need” to use fossil fuels, they can all switch to solar and wind — never mind that they will never deliver the kind of power people actually rely on.
Next, he blathers about the S-chip program, which is a….legislative program…and not a “tax”…a program to be paid for by taxes or borrowing. Take yer pick.
Finally, chap betrays any understanding of the federal tax code when he speaks of “average” tax savings. If 40 to 50% (depending on what and how you count) of all “working” Americans pay no federal income tax right now, then how can they get any further reduction?
If people who already pay no tax still get a “stumulus” rebate they are getting welfare, not a tax cut.
(It’s nice to see Ragspierre and others slice and dice this clown.)
I HAVE HAD ENOUGH. I HAVE HEARD ENOUGH.
I HAVE CALLED, EMAILED, FAXED ENOUGH!
MY NEXT ACTION IS REVOLUTION!
That’s not the worst of it. My best friend used to work for the California Board of Equalization, the office that collects the sales tax. She says that in the year 2000 in the San Fernando Valley alone, $1 million per day in sales tax was collected – and simply pocketed – by businesses. Statewide, that’s billions per year stolen, and that was almost 10 years ago. The State knows and has done nothing. Anyone foolish enough to feel that they’re doing their part by shelling out nearly 10% should think again.
Sales tax collection is a joke, collection is on the honor system (in California of all places where honor is a dirty word), and the few who are caught through their own stupidity are only required to pay pennies on the dollar embezzled and face no criminal penalties. There are entire classes of businesses (e.g. auto mechanics) who never get audited, and cheat at will.
Until states get serious about fraud – THEFT of public money – taxing internet transactions is worse than a sick joke. States can’t stop the theft from the business down the street, do they think it’s going to be any easier when the business is on the other side of the country?
It’s bad enough that we’re being taxed to support illegals and our own home-grown deadbeats, but to have the $$ flat out stolen and no one seems to care? WTH?
Do illegal aliens file tax returns? How would they get a social security number? Wouldn’t applying for a social security card alert the authorites to their presence?
Methinks they don’t file, don’t pay, but are first in line for benefits and protests. Can I have an illegal aliens rights defender calculate how much lost revenue that is? I have heard how much they pay in taxes, how about how much is NOT paid in taxes?
Then the market will punish them with fewer sales. For the same reason the gummint keeps having to raise sin taxes (because people use less of what they keep taxing higher), retailers who try to increase taxes will make more per unit, but far less on volume.
It’s a fool’s game. It’s also one of the hoariest of leftist canards, that evil business can increase their prices w/o consequences.
When sales fall, ya think they might try lowering their prices to attract more business?
Ya think? YA THINK??
I’m skeptical. Sales tax is a big revenue generator in all states that have such a tax. Here in Mass., if I miss my quarterly sales tax payments the state is after me in a heartbeat — even though I have an internet business, nearly all my business comes from outside the state, and the tax on in-state sales I collect is very small.
(but I do collect it).
I know a lot of other small business owners, and the aggressiveness of the State tax beagles is a continual topic.
Try displaying and selling your homemade jewelry at a Town Day, w/o having a tax certificate, and see what happens! “They” send people out to look for such tax cheats.
If California is lax on collecting, its residents are lucky. But I doubt their situation is typical.
CA does have an aggressive sales tax collection unit. I have been through several audits including audits from several different states. Washington, and Louisiana were the worst.
CA does check, they just don’t check illegal alien businesses. Lots of Dems in Sacramento don’t like it. They prefer to go after Republicans.
WTH is with Enzi? Is he a RINO? Why would he support this?
And WTH can’t the states CUT SPENDING!!! GD IT!
It is, of course, a lie.
THE ONLY entity of which I know that can do that…
IS government.
It is one of the reasons the market provides incentives to increase the wealth of a nation, to innovate, to improve the standard of living, and to allow us all choices.
While the government destroys incentives, rewards failure and blames the failures on greed, the market, or a lack of regulation. They consume wealth, and stifle innovation, lowering the standard of living for everyone they pretend to wish to help.
If you tax something, you get less of it. This applies to retail sales as much as anything else. Sure, the State sales tax departments will be money ahead, but income tax collections at the State and Federal levels will drop as lower retail sales mean less revenue and lower margins for sellers and producers. With no Federal sales tax, Federal revenues must fall, adding to the deficit. So, Congress is doing this why?
Can anyone expand on the meaning of Article 1, Section 9, “No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.”
Also, Section 8 starts with, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Why does the first clause list “taxes” but the second clause does not? Does this mean the collection of taxes is exempt from ‘uniformity’? Is that why we have this absurd graduated income tax scale? What a mess.
For anyone who would like to know the what’s what of all this tax discussion, I heartily recommend…
Dr. Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics
There, far better than could I, you will see an exposition of the truth that with higher taxes…
you get less revenue.
As people simply adjust their exquisitely subtle “vote” cast with each dollar spent.
They forgo any optional purchase, and they find substitutes that are untaxed, or they find ways to “fiddle the tax” as the Brits say.
I purchased many hundreds of cigars pre S-CHIP. None of my money will go into that maw anytime in the next year, at least.
I will watch carefully for on-line vendors from other nations, and I will purchase from them.
But, in the course of the S-CHIP crap, there will be people in poor countries who’s product will have been priced out of the American market, solely due to the idiots who imposed this regressive tax. Many will loose jobs they value, and the standard of living in their countries will decline.
Domestic vendors will see their sales decline, as foreign competitors prosper. Domestic vendors and producers will be forced to reduce staff, and the standard of living in the U.S. will decline.
Americans who choose to use tobacco produces, but who cannot now afford the cost, will loose the choice they had …that, but for their “leaders” they would have.
All around, as stupid a notion as any I can imagine.
And for what? To extend health insurance to upper-middle class American “children” (some in their twenties) courtesy of the Federal teet.
So, for that “good” we impose costs on people around the world, many of whom live in conditions we would consider poverty. And that poverty will only increase now.
Is this the same Mike Enzi that supported the tea parties?
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D97K99I00.htm
Vomit in 3…2…1…
There is nothing new about this taxation con game. When Reagan cut income taxes in 1981, the states raised theirs. Then the following year, Congress raised payroll and self-employment taxes “to save Social Security.” (Where have we heard that before?) As a result, federal spenders were dipping into payroll and SE tax receipts to minimize the deficit. After all, payments of payroll and SE taxes are commingled with payments of income taxes. When complaints arose about the onerous burden of payroll and SE taxes (just ask Mr. Geithner), Congress then enacted the Earned Income Tax Credit, starting us down another fiscal slippery slope.
I don’t mind paying my fair share of taxes, but please, let there be truth in taxation just as there is supposed to be truth in lending and truth in packaging.
Yes, thanks for asking dadmin,
This means “Taxes and duties will be laid on every articles exported from any state.”
Contradiction? Not in the State of Confusion.
Aloha
Another sign of the “growth” of the living Constitution…
Funny, I don’t recall the amendment that covered that “growth”…
It’s a sales tax. The last time I checked, it’s voluntary. This is what the FairTax is based on: consumption tax in lieu of income tax.
*Viva La Fair Tax; It IS the only way out of the abyss.
They spend, we pay. They over spend, they punish us, and find more ways to make us pay.
FIRE THEM ALL! I’ve had it with these dang losers! They’re just men and women, like any of us. There is nothing that makes them better than us. Take away the legislative power, and they have nothing.
Jeepers Chap, even the liberal lovin’ AP called Obama out on his broken promise not to raise taxes:
http://tinyurl.com/ckuwob
Did you get that last part?
O/T
idk, I just had to post this somewhere..
Axelrod: Anti-Americanism now ‘not cool’
So when was the last time Axelrod knew what was cool and what was not – when Foghat played the West Des Moines high school auditorium in ‘73?
Here is something similar to research. A few years ago the US Supreme Court finally told the states that they can not prevent the interstate sale of wine to those of us who like to order wines from our favorite small wineries and vineyards that sell wine through web sites and through word of mouth. The US SC ruled that the states can not try to stifle out of state competition that saves so much money for consumers. Even after the US Supreme Court decision, several states, with bureaucrats that do not even bother to try to follow the law, simply ignore the US Supreme Court decision and continue to bar out of state shipments of wine. I called and asked a friend of mine who runs a small winery and vineyard in a western state if I am now allowed to buy wine through his company’s web site. He said: “Nope, your state still has bureaucrats that make our life incredibly difficult and we don’t want the legal problems so we just don’t do it”. It is a protection racket run by the bureacrats and the local yokels who fear out of state competition. I should be able to buy the products that I want from whomever I choose to do business with yet I am prevented by some geeks in my state capital who want to tell me where I can buy what I want to buy.
The good news is that your reeducation camp is in Napa. The bad news is that “noble rot” will be an expression that describes your years of servitude to the state.
In reply to ArizonaNeanderthal (April 20th, 2009 at 4:29 pm): I’m wearing two layers of long-sleeved shirts, if that’s any indication of my proximity to the border. Thick hoodie sweatshirts are extremely useful in this oppressive heat. Big ozone hole’s getting bigger, don’cha know. But I digress.
I hear you can get good deals on online smokes, but I also hear that smokes acquired off the internet taste like 4,000 year old mummified zebra liver. Sort of a turn off, I think. Don’t ask me how my peeps are familiar with the flavor of ancient zebra livers. They just are. They also think it sucks that one of the attractions to internet commerce is possibly going to be taken off the list of attractions to internet commerce.
So no one thinks I’m serious when I say I’m purposely killing myself for the sake of the children? Just the thought of this type of charity makes me want to smoke more. Giving back—I feel it in my blood. I feel it in my lungs. It’s my civic doodie. ‘Scuse me while I clear my throat. I’m gettin’ all choked up just thinkin’ about it.
*cough*
Obama promised not to raise taxes (meaning income taxes). The government and him will kill us with indirect taxes. Those of you sitting back, smug, thinking, you don’t pay income taxes at all anyway, you’ll find yourself spending a whole lot more soon, in increased utilities, rent, sales taxes and “fees”. When taxes on companies and product-producers go up, who pays the bill? Not the companies, that’s for sure. You do, in increased prices. Watch internet companies raise prices as they have to spend profit to finance tax collection. Taxes on the “rich” has always been a farce. They just find new tax shelters and other tax-deferred investments. That’s the reason why so many of the “rich” support the Left. It’s all a farce. You think the rich Left in government want to pay more taxes? How about the “rich” Hollywood left? Watch your spending power go down as you sit, smug and happy, knowing your income tax hasn’t gone up.
I think you’re going to find a lot of local retail businesses in favor of an internet sales tax.
.
Of course they do. They never met a tax they didn’t like.
I agree with this point. Obama touted taxing the “rich” but many of the the taxes he’s adding will eventually be paid by consumers of all income levels.
But this statement I don’t agree with. “rich” people pay a whole lot of taxes. Even those horrible rich families that Obama hates that make just about $250K a year. Even after some deductions, you’ll find they’re paying close to $100,000 in federal taxes.
We are nowhere near an election, so what do they care? Bottom line – it’s all about the vote. Nary a statesman/woman amongst them.
Idiot. That is the exact opposite of what I said.
T
No. It is a tax. But it is a tax on a product one voluntarily chooses to purchase, which is fundamentally different than a tax on one’s income.
Where the hell did I say it was the “free market”? Cite that post or shut the hell up. Regardless of whether or not the taxes make it more expensive, it is entirely voluntary.
Actually, you won’t. But keep trying there, sport.
I said Obama supported S-CHIP, INCLUDING THE CIGARETTE TAX. Which is the relevant part, moron.
Well hooooweeee. An actual kinda sorta argument! Shocking! Mommy must be proud! But….First, I am not sure whether you are using the term “income tax” to include any tax on income, including social security and medicare, because of course, people pay into those even if they don’t pay the actual income tax. So saying they pay “no tax” on their income is wrong.
But in any case setting that aside, fair point about average wages. Some that are figured into that don’t end up paying the income tax (though they still pay payroll taxes on their income). According to some number I found the average taxpayer makes $51K. So $400 is still at least a 6% reduction in their tax burden. Not too shabby.
I think that’s only true if you don’t count the taxes we pay that aren’t income taxes, like the aforementioned employment taxes, sales taxes, sin taxes, property taxes, inventory taxes, and let’s not even get started on the fees.
Just set me on fire already and get it over with.
Besides, the $400 isn’t even a tax cut. It’s a stimulus. The witholding amount declined, but the liability didn’t.
When you consider that the money was taken by force from its rightful owner…
it is SHABBY from top to bottom.
It is criminal, if done privately.
BTW, your various falsehoods, distortions, and outright BS is SHABBY.
I’ve invited you to specify them many times. You have yet to do so. You just weasel away saying crap like “the post speaks for itself.”
Pa-thet-ic.
Let’s see…economy in the dumper…people out of work…nobody can afford anything beyond the basics…LET’S RAISE TAXES!
Chaps:
I have one simple question for you.
WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?
How much money do I get to keep and how much does the State/Local/Fed get to take away from me?
How is a tax cut for the 95% of Americans (a totally misleading quote if there ever was one) account for all the local/state/fed taxes that Americans currently experience? Chaps, can Americans get a tax cut on all the registration fees, sales tax, property tax, personal property tax, state income taxes, and even federal income taxes?
This Obummer promise is a REBATE and that’s that. Where’s my freaking return in SS and Medicare/Medicaid taxes that get taken out of my paycheck?
I will celebrate the day that Americans grow a brain and realize that the middle class isn’t being hit nearly as hard as the higher income Americans. Yet, when we have to pay back the 13 trillion in debt we owe (or is that quadrillion when you include all the entitlement debt) that WE’RE ALL GOING TO BE TAXED.
Americans really need to get a clue. Oh, and Chaps… this Internet sales tax grab is wrong and your defense of it signifies that none of us are entitled to hang on to our money.
I’m talking about the “rich” who want liberals in Congress, knowing full well, what that entails…more taxes. They’ve found tax shelters and ways to invest money in their own corporations or overseas to “hide” their money. You think, for example, that Reid, Kennedy and Pelosi willingly support more of their money going into government? I sincerely doubt it. The poor pay no income taxes, so they’re happy about it, ignorant of the fact that what they buy will cost more. And, that’s not mentioning the fact that their car registration just went way up, as well as that car inspection in some states. The really “rich”, know their money is safe…heck, if I was one, I’d make sure of it too.