We all knew that sooner or later the tax-and-spend types in Congress were going to try to pass legislation assessing a fee to purchase online. For Democrats, of course, there is no new tax that they do not love. Unfortunately some traitorous Senate Republicans joined in (today) and helped the Dems pass a bill to allow states to tax internet sales.
Hopefully the Republican controlled House will reject this outrageous mugging of the middle class. Prez Hussein got his tax increase on the so-called wealthy - now they are going after ordinary working folks?! I don't know about you, but I'm steamed. Especially that Senate Republicans would go along with this shake down of strapped everyday citizens. They are supposed to hold the line and stop the Dems when they attempt to pick our pockets.
It is true that you're supposed to self-report online purchases and pay the tax when you file your state income tax returns, but does anyone actually comply? Maybe happy to "contribute" Liberals (those who aren't living off entitlements and actually have an income), but I'd bet even the Liberal (hypocrite) compliance rate is low. I sure as hell do not divulge what I buy online to my state tax collectors. It is none of their fricking business.
If this bill passes taxes will be assessed and collected automatically by online retailers (and passed on to the states), so you'll have no choice but to pay up. CBS News reports that "some states have sales taxes as high as 7 percent, plus city and county taxes that can push the combined rate even higher". Apparently they think we're made of money!
Congress continues to spend without restraint knowing they can simply pass legislation to steal more from us already over-taxed citizens. Instead of balancing the books as they should. Additionally, as the CBS article warns, "States could audit out-of-state businesses, impose liens on their property and, ultimately, sue them in state court" - so this legislation gives even more power to the government to harass businesses by piling on onerous regulations. Does anyone else find this extremely troubling?
One commenter to the CBS News story put it best when he described Congress as "a mob of self-serving, greedy, corrupt, egomaniacs who could care less about the affects their actions or inactions have on the people they are supposed to represent".
Look at the bright side, you don't have to purchase and you avoid the tax...its optional.
ReplyDeleteNice try, BB. It is only optional if you can purchase and not pay the tax. I am with Barlowe on this, and opposing such a tax to discourage interstate commrrce. Its greedy and unnecessary. Hopefuly the House, which at this time guards the public interest, will stop this.
DeleteIin fact, your argument is like those who favor closed-shop unions, BB. And say no one is forced to join the union, they can stay unemployed. Which is exactly like in sexual harassment cases, telling the woman no one forced her to sleep with the boss to keep her job. She had unemployment as an option.
DeleteAnd yes this is one of those instances where the Democrat position is very anti-worker and wrong.
So, does the fee/tax go to your state, the state of the seller, or to the federal government? I can't rightly say that I'm a big fan of this, either.
ReplyDeleteAnd Will? To answer your question, the answer is "down a rat-hole". And the businesses go overseas.
DeleteWTG Senate: attack one of the bright spots in the economy.
If they want to level the playing field, reduce the taxes on brick and mortar businesses.
ReplyDeleteI don't buy much on the internet, other than things I cannot find locally: have never used Amazon/E-bay...so for me it is optional.
ReplyDeleteAs far as someone that does not want to join a union, there are other job options...heck, I've flat turned down jobs because I felt
the company didn't deserve my talent and ability...and never had/took the 'unemployed option'. I can see advantages and disadvantages
across the business spectrum, but am neutral-it will not affect either my internet or brick/mortar shopping. I've always lived near
state borders where state tax v state tax seemed to be an issue for
some, and this looks little different.
BB: why should union membership be a condition of employment? To me it makes no sense that people can be fired for refusing to belong to political fundraising organizations that have nothing to do with ones ability to do the job. It makes as much sense to fire people for refusing to join a union as it does for firing those who refuse to join "Americans for Prosperity".
ReplyDeleteWhy not back off on bullying workers?
I thought Liberals had empathy, yet Mr. Idaho does not shop online and so does not give a damn about people who do. I shop online quite a bit, and think the state should butt out instead of salivating greedily in anticipation of sticking me up for my hard earned cash (as they most likely are doing).
ReplyDeleteThe page Mr. Idaho linked to says the states are eager to rob us of an additional 11.4 BILLION in taxes! No doubt some people will rethink purchases now that taxes will be assessed (if the bill passes the House), so they might not get quite that much. Liberals are always worried about taxes they say are "regressive", and this tax falls into that category -- it will hit lower and middle income people harder (as everyone pays the same rate, unlike with income taxes).
And no that comment is not personal to you BB, but to the American labor union movement which has a large legitimacy problem when at least one-third of those who belong and "contribute" are doing so against their will.
ReplyDeleteThis is an illegitimacy lacking elsewhere.
Correction to my prior comment: The state wants to stick me up for MORE of my hard earned cash. I forgot the "more" -- I already pay them far to much in all the numerous taxes they assess me. Enough is enough I say.
ReplyDeleteAlso, from the story that Mr. Idaho linked to:
"[Businesses] say it's too burdensome to collect taxes for multiple states, even with state-provided software called for in the bill. Some say they will need more employees just to deal with sales tax; many say they will have to rethink their whole business strategy".
More red tape that will drive down profits for our already struggling businesses. I don't see how this will cause (these particular) businesses to go overseas (as dmarks predicts) however. A lot of their products are manufactured overseas, but they are located here. Can you imagine the shipping costs if you buy online and the item is shipped from another country! It would be a lot more than the tax -- given the fact that the post office just raised the rates for shipping overseas by a HUGE percentage (they roughly DOUBLED it).
I've bought many things online that have been shipped from other countries. Very low shipping rates too.
DeleteTrue, the sales tax is regressive, Barlowe..but I maintain that except for necessities, it is optional. For things like cars, it can amount to a significant outlay, but again, the tax is a percent of the total sale. So, if you want a Rolls, the tax will be higher:
ReplyDeleteso in that way, it is progressive. From a free market standpoint, the brick/mortar/mom/pop small businesses suffer from internet sales. Their having to charge sales tax vs internet sales is just a
small part of the small business problem. I understand the Amazon
is in favor of internet sales tax, but haven't delved into their
reasoning (but, I bet it is the simplicity of software which handles such with little cost or effort). Yes, liberals tend to
be empathetic...danged thinking with the anterior cingulate rather than the amygdala..you'd think they would make great salesmen (instead of whiners?)
Mr. Idaho: if you want a Rolls, the tax will be higher: so in that way, it is progressive.
ReplyDeleteNo it isn't. The total tax will be more because the price is more, but the rate is the same (unless a luxury tax is added, but we were talking about purchases in general, not the sales of luxury items). Progressive means the percentage goes up. As a Liberal you should know this!
Also, if you buy something on the web you have to pay to have it shipped to you. So that's an advantage that brick and mortar stores have over internet/mail order sellers. Plus it is a lot easier to return items to a B&M seller -- which is something I think about when making a purchase.
In regards to the "except for necessities, it is optional" point you made -- I do not give a damn about that. I should be able to purchase whatever the hell I want and it being "optional" does not make sticking me up for a sales tax OK.
Barlowe: The luxury tax is rapacious and greedy and harms working people, not the rich. All it does is encourage the rich the launder their money by spending it on luxuries that aren't taxed. And the bad side effects. I live near some boat factories. The Clinton-era luxury taxes hit these businesses hard and many blue collar workers who built boats lost their jobs.
DeleteWhile blue collar workers got clobbered by this tax that was supposedly to screw the rich, I doubt you can find a single rich person who suffered under it.
Mr Idaho, I am guessing that something similar probably happens with the Rolls. Put a special tax on the Rolls, and the rich blow their money elsewhere and Rolls-building workers get kicked off the assembly line and into poverty.
yeah, some folks just hate to pay taxes ..
ReplyDeleteHaha. BB, interesting. If he were a leftist like Geithner, this might qualify him for a Treasury Secretary nomination!
ReplyDeleteInternet sales: I use that a lot for model railroad stuff. For years, I had to drive hundreds of miles to find a good hobby shop.
ReplyDeleteEven the internet varies in cost/customer service/stocking, and one
needs to be familiar with the product and the I-net retailer. Neat for some niche things as well: I know a young lady architect who does international e-bay business in repairing those weird artsy
furniture items from the sixties. (She bought an old factory and is
busy entrepreneuring away). I can't get too excited about the salestax issue, given what I pay in taxes on a can of Prince Albert
Pipe tobacco.
Hello? Hello? Yes. Mr Idaho? Do you have Prince Albert in a can?
ReplyDeleteI recall making those calls in Jr. High-sort of a rite of passage.
ReplyDeleteThe tobacco Prince Albert was named after the original Prince Albert
& Victoria's son, who became King Edward VII. He smoked 20 cigarettes and 12 cigars a day. His American friend, RJ Reynolds,
named an early blend after him and it seems to have stuck. In the
day, I saved cans from London Dock, Willoughby Taylor , Crosby Square
etc. Dozens..finally threw them out. Internet sales-wise, I see
those empty antiques going for big $$$$. Missed out, but you won't
see me on 'American Hoarder'.
Timmy Geithner is a Republican.
ReplyDeleteHe is a left-wing Democrat, actually, a proud part of a left-wing Democratic Presidential administration.
ReplyDelete