TeaBaggers Will Vote To Raise Taxes !!!!!

Originally posted by normbenign
Ok, if that is the case, where does the charging State, say Massachusetts get the jurisdiction to tax in say Ohio or Minnesota? I guess the answer is by an unconstitutional law about to be voted on.

This doesn't touch border State issues which include cigarette smuggling, non sales tax States, dry and wet States, marijuana from legalized States to others, container deposits, and I may be forgetting some.

I don't know the legal theory but make no assumptions. One principle of taxation is to be neutral to the market. In the large picture, not taxing some sellers isn't tax neutral.

Originally posted by JS357
I don't know the legal theory but make no assumptions. One principle of taxation is to be neutral to the market. In the large picture, not taxing some sellers isn't tax neutral.

Up until now sales taxes have been State taxes intrastate. I just don't see how Congress gets the authority to extend the jurisdiction of any State to anyone who buys goods outside the State. That would mean that in border state cases, like Mass/NH there would have to be custom houses on interstate highways, and on country roads that cross the border. Your papers please!

Originally posted by normbenign
Ok, if that is the case, where does the charging State, say Massachusetts get the jurisdiction to tax in say Ohio or Minnesota? I guess the answer is by an unconstitutional law about to be voted on.

This doesn't touch border State issues which include cigarette smuggling, non sales tax States, dry and wet States, marijuana from legalized States to others, container deposits, and I may be forgetting some.

The Supreme Court ruled over 20 years ago that:

Accordingly, Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent the States may burden interstate mail order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-0194.ZO.html

Even Scalia concurred. Congress "got the authority" in the Commerce Clause of the United states Constitution (read it sometime).

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Supreme Court ruled over 20 years ago that:

Accordingly, Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent the States may burden interstate mail order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-0194.ZO.html

Even Scalia concurred. Congress "got the authority" in the Commerce Clause of the United states Constitution (read it sometime).

Do you mind if I find that ruling perfidious, unreasonable, and contradictory. Would individual purchases made in person in another State also come under the commerce clause?

Is the Congress of today ready to tear down a highly efficient market in a misguided effort to collect more revenue? I can believe the Obama side is.

Originally posted by normbenign
Up until now sales taxes have been State taxes intrastate. I just don't see how Congress gets the authority to extend the jurisdiction of any State to anyone who buys goods outside the State. That would mean that in border state cases, like Mass/NH there would have to be custom houses on interstate highways, and on country roads that cross the border. Your papers please!

My point was that the so-called burden on consumers is false; sellers are free to advertize "we pay the sales tax" as in the example I gave. (It is possible (?) that a state could outlaw such an advertizement on the theory that it is false advertizing; the seller obviously building the sales tax, as they do all costs, into the price of goods. I don't know this.) It is really a gross receipts "income tax" that the sellers are induced to pass on as a "sales tax" to consumers, for the good of states and sellers and to the financial detriment of consumers. My intention was to rebut the idea that sales taxes are somehow more acceptable than income taxes. The sales tax is just the seller recovering his income tax on gross receipts from the consumer, at his own volition, in a competitive market. The proposed law levels the playing field between intra and interstate commerce.

On your point, it seems that you might need to change the commerce clause.

Originally posted by normbenign
Do you mind if I find that ruling perfidious, unreasonable, and contradictory. Would individual purchases made in person in another State also come under the commerce clause?

Is the Congress of today ready to tear down a highly efficient market in a misguided effort to collect more revenue? I can believe the Obama side is.

Are individual purchases in another State "interstate commerce"?

There's nothing remotely "perfidious, unreasonable, and contradictory" in saying that a consumer purchasing an item online from another State is engaging in interstate commerce which the US Constitution expressly grants the Congress the power to regulate. If you want to argue the law is bad policy do so but it's legally ignorant to argue it's "unconstitutional" (though present day right wingers tend to describe ANY policy they don't like as "unconstitutional"😉.

Originally posted by JS357
My point was that the so-called burden on consumers is false; sellers are free to advertize "we pay the sales tax" as in the example I gave. (It is possible (?) that a state could outlaw such an advertizement on the theory that it is false advertizing; the seller obviously building the sales tax, as they do all costs, into the price of goods. I don't know this ...[text shortened]... e commerce.

On your point, it seems that you might need to change the commerce clause.

The Commerce Clause allows the Congress to pass this particular law; it doesn't mandate it.

Originally posted by JS357
My point was that the so-called burden on consumers is false; sellers are free to advertize "we pay the sales tax" as in the example I gave. (It is possible (?) that a state could outlaw such an advertizement on the theory that it is false advertizing; the seller obviously building the sales tax, as they do all costs, into the price of goods. I don't know this ...[text shortened]... e commerce.

On your point, it seems that you might need to change the commerce clause.

"My intention was to rebut the idea that sales taxes are somehow more acceptable than income taxes."

The biggest difference is avoid-ability. The sales tax can be avoided by not buying stuff in sales tax states. The second difference is that any income tax is heavy on compliance costs. People have to keep lots of records, receipts, take their tax forms to accountants, etc. The sales tax is automatic, and requires no compliance costs, costs which advantage neither the taxing entity nor the tax payer.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Commerce Clause allows the Congress to pass this particular law; it doesn't mandate it.

Congress then ought to consider the likely consequences of imposing such taxes. Consider that most internet or mail order houses ship goods, and shipping costs are usually in the same range as sales taxes.

Originally posted by normbenign
Congress then ought to consider the likely consequences of imposing such taxes. Consider that most internet or mail order houses ship goods, and shipping costs are usually in the same range as sales taxes.

(Shrug) I haven't studied the issue enough to make a judgment on the wisdom of it. But the proposed law isn't unconstitutional.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Are individual purchases in another State "interstate commerce"?

There's nothing remotely "perfidious, unreasonable, and contradictory" in saying that a consumer purchasing an item online from another State is engaging in interstate commerce which the US Constitution expressly grants the Congress the power to regulate. If you want to argue ...[text shortened]... ay right wingers tend to describe ANY policy they don't like as "unconstitutional"😉.

"US Constitution expressly grants the Congress the power to regulate" Does regulating interstate commerce give Congress the right to extend the jurisdiction of taxing States into other States?

There isn't any question when it comes to a train load of cars from Michigan or Ohio entering another State, or a load of grain from Iowa into Indiana.

Do people who drive from Lowell, MA into Nashua, NH to have dinner engage in interstate commerce? If they stop at Walmart and buy a lawnmower, how does MA collect a sales tax on it? Yes, bad policy indeed. Stop those people from buying stuff at the best costs.

This type of thinking comes from the premise that all wealth comes from government, and what they let you keep is of their benevolence. 🙂🙂

Originally posted by sh76
I'm sorry about the harsh intro, but I think that the term "teabagger" is an offensive slur with very demeaning not-so-subtle implications.
I am not a Tea Party fan, but they don't deserve to be addressed by an offensive slur any more than racial or religious minority groups do.

Since when is such a thing a slur when referring to a political party ??
Did I hurt your feelers, lol ? Are you declaring that nothing demeaning can be said about any political party ??
Grow up. Justifying the hypocrisy seems your intent. 😛

Originally posted by normbenign
"My intention was to rebut the idea that sales taxes are somehow more acceptable than income taxes."

The biggest difference is avoid-ability. The sales tax can be avoided by not buying stuff in sales tax states. The second difference is that any income tax is heavy on compliance costs. People have to keep lots of records, receipts, take their tax fo ...[text shortened]... quires no compliance costs, costs which advantage neither the taxing entity nor the tax payer.

So if sales taxes can more equitably and more efficiently allocate the costs of living in a society than income taxes can, I would opt for them.

But so-called sales taxes as we know them are an income tax on the seller's gross sales receipts, which the state and the sellers cooperate in passing on to the buyer.

I think your real issue is the reach of states into the income of sellers incorporated in other states. It's not about whether sales taxes are more equitable (Edit: or more efficiently collected) than income taxes.

Originally posted by normbenign
"US Constitution expressly grants the Congress the power to regulate" Does regulating interstate commerce give Congress the right to extend the jurisdiction of taxing States into other States?

There isn't any question when it comes to a train load of cars from Michigan or Ohio entering another State, or a load of grain from Iowa into Indiana.

Do pe ...[text shortened]... at all wealth comes from government, and what they let you keep is of their benevolence. 🙂🙂

I'm quite at a loss to understand how anyone, even someone as ignorant and stubborn as you, can't grasp that someone sitting at a computer terminal in State X and buying an item from a firm located in State Y is engaging in interstate commerce.

Then in one post you extol the advantages of the sales tax over the income tax (naturally ignoring its disadvantages) only to promptly, IN YOUR NEXT POST, complain that they are "This type of thinking comes from the premise that all wealth comes from government, and what they let you keep is of their benevolence"! You must be the most incoherent "thinker" I have ever come across.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Are individual purchases in another State "interstate commerce"?

There's nothing remotely "perfidious, unreasonable, and contradictory" in saying that a consumer purchasing an item online from another State is engaging in interstate commerce which the US Constitution expressly grants the Congress the power to regulate. If you want to argue ...[text shortened]... ay right wingers tend to describe ANY policy they don't like as "unconstitutional"😉.

Regulate means to set policy and rules to ensure a system operates properly. It doesn't mean tax the hell out of something steal wealth and grind the economy to a halt!!!!