TeaBaggers Will Vote To Raise Taxes !!!!!

Originally posted by joe beyser
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!!!!

😴😴

Originally posted by no1marauder
😴😴

LOL

Originally posted by caissad4
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. 😛

Your OP was ludicrous. The only thing I was trying to justify was my being nastier than I normally would, not any nonexistent "hypocrisy." As I and others have clearly demonstrated, this is not a federal tax bill at all and so there can plainly be no hypocrisy with the TP position of lower federal taxes. A proponent of states' rights would naturally be in favor of allowing states to enforce their own existing sales tax laws.

Doubling down on your plainly fallacious OP is hardly a good debating strategy.

Originally posted by joe beyser
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!!!!

Well that certainly clears things up. We were just defining "regulation" wrong. 🙂

Originally posted by no1marauder
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 ignorin of their benevolence"! You must be the most incoherent "thinker" I have ever come across.

I'm not arguing that such activity on the internet isn't interstate commerce. Clearly it is. I'm rolling on your point that the commerce clause doesn't require regulation on all interstate commerce. I'm quite sure that a lot of regular commerce goes on across state lines, as I tried to illustrate, which is not regulated, and would be difficult to regulate while still maintaining any semblance of a free society.

Recognizing advantages in one type of taxation over others doesn't, as you point out, mean that it has no disadvantages. Right now sales taxes are variable and imposed by the States. That leaves a situation where States are competing with each other for both business and revenues. More choices are a good thing. My statement, "This type of thinking comes from the premise that all wealth comes from government, and what they let you keep is of their benevolence"!, is relative to the nature of government to be always looking for new revenue streams, and differing ways to squeeze money out of the individual tax payer. It applies equally to all forms of taxation.

Originally posted by JS357
Well that certainly clears things up. We were just defining "regulation" wrong. 🙂

Well, it does clear up that regulation differs from taxation. Of course to some extent, No1 makes the same point. The right to declare a tax, doesn't make it good policy to do so.

I still don't see and agree with the point that the commerce clause justifies Congress adjusting the jurisdictions of the various States in order to collect sales taxes. Those States that don't have a sales tax do so with the obvious calculation that this will increase business activity. Other States could counter with reducing or eliminating their sales tax.

The rationale of the founders in leaving most issues of law to the individual States or to the people was to give the people the right to vote with their feet. The internet and before it the telephone gave people the right to vote with their dollars as well. I think it is a good thing that we have some mechanisms in place to restrain government at all levels from just raising taxes whenever they are so inclined.

Originally posted by normbenign
Well, it does clear up that regulation differs from taxation. Of course to some extent, No1 makes the same point. The right to declare a tax, doesn't make it good policy to do so.

I still don't see and agree with the point that the commerce clause justifies Congress adjusting the jurisdictions of the various States in order to collect sales taxes. T e to restrain government at all levels from just raising taxes whenever they are so inclined.

Clearing up that regulation differs from taxation is like clearing up that apples differ from oranges.

I found a decent overview at:

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/etax.html

In spite of it being from the People's Republic of Berkeley, it is pretty balanced.

Summary:

Even optimistic forecasts of online shopping indicate that it will be several years, if ever, before lost sales tax revenue becomes a serious problem. [JS NOTE: This was written in 2000.]


If it does become a serious problem, Congress could easily pass a law relaxing nexus standards thereby allowing states to collect taxes from out-of-state vendors.


State and local sales taxes are overly complex and confusing with a variety of rates, bases, exemptions, and practices. Simplification should be part of any plan allowing taxation of remote purchases.


Ideally businesses should not have to pay sales tax on purchases of any intermediate products and only final consumption should be taxed.


It is generally better have a low tax rate on a broad base rather than a high tax rate on a narrow base. Due to the growth of the services sector, a relatively small part of consumption is actually subject to the sales tax, resulting in potentially significant economic distortions.


Even if we come up with a more coherent scheme for the United States, several of the same issues will arise for international purchases.

We have plenty of time for careful study of the issue of online sales tax. Whatever one thinks about the eventual magnitude of sales tax losses due to online purchases, it is clear that the current state and local sales tax systems in the United States are in need of serious reform. Instead of adding another patch to a poorly-designed and inefficient system, it would make more sense to use the current attention being paid to sales taxes as an opportunity to make some fundamental changes.

end of quote

Originally posted by normbenign
Well, it does clear up that regulation differs from taxation. Of course to some extent, No1 makes the same point. The right to declare a tax, doesn't make it good policy to do so.

I still don't see and agree with the point that the commerce clause justifies Congress adjusting the jurisdictions of the various States in order to collect sales taxes. T ...[text shortened]... e to restrain government at all levels from just raising taxes whenever they are so inclined.

If the People of State A decide through their elected representatives to impose a sales tax to pay for government activities that they desire, then I fail to see how imposing that tax on themselves when they engage in the interstate commerce activity of internet shopping violates any "right" they possess. The proper restraint on government in this case is an election.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If the People of State A decide through their elected representatives to impose a sales tax to pay for government activities that they desire, then I fail to see how imposing that tax on themselves when they engage in the interstate commerce activity of internet shopping violates any "right" they possess. The proper restraint on government in this case is an election.

"I fail to see how imposing that tax on themselves when they engage in the interstate commerce activity of internet shopping violates any "right" they possess."

If as present, a State required consumers in the State to report out of State purchases, and pay a sales tax on them, that seems to be not a problem. That is a relationship between the voters of the State and their elected representatives. Of course this voluntary method results in very little revenue, as most consumers ignore it.

It is an entirely different story when the tax collecting entity of another State gets involved, due to an act of Congress. A State which has refrained from taxing sales is now required to lose the advantage it and its businesses had, this by the dictate of Congress, and worse use its resources to collect this tax for another State. This isn't a case of the people voting to pay a tax, but the Federal government making States that don't want to, to do work for other States that they are in competition with.

Originally posted by sh76
[b]Your OP was ludicrous. The only thing I was trying to justify was my being nastier than I normally would, not any nonexistent "hypocrisy." As I and others have clearly demonstrated, this is not a federal tax bill at all and so there can plainly be no hypocrisy with the TP position of lower federal taxes. A proponent of states' rights would naturally be in favor of allowing states to enforce their own existing sales tax laws.

1. This is a tax bill.
2. It is Federal legislation since it requires a vote of the US Congress, US Senate and Presidential action to become law.
3. My state (Texas) already has laws governing this.
Whatever semantics you choose to employ this is still Federal legislation which increases 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.

Do you think falsely saying over and over and again that the law is unconstitutional makes it so?

You've offered no rational argument supporting such a claim which has been rejected by the SCOTUS and is contrary to common sense and the explicit wording of the Constitution.

Originally posted by normbenign
"I fail to see how imposing that tax on themselves when they engage in the interstate commerce activity of internet shopping violates any "right" they possess."

If as present, a State required consumers in the State to report out of State purchases, and pay a sales tax on them, that seems to be not a problem. That is a relationship between the voters States that don't want to, to do work for other States that they are in competition with.

I see nothing in the bill requiring States with no sales taxes to do anything. If businesses in no sales tax States want to avoid collecting sales taxes from customers in States with sales taxes they don't have to sell them stuff.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I see nothing in the bill requiring States with no sales taxes to do anything. If businesses in no sales tax States want to avoid collecting sales taxes from customers in States with sales taxes they don't have to sell them stuff.

Would someone refute me on this? Please?

The company in a state with no sales taxes that sells to consumers in a State with sales taxes doesn't have to "collect" sales taxes from customers in that State. All they have to do is forward to the State imposing those sales taxes, the sales tax that that State requires for sales into that State. They can still say, we don't charge you the sales tax, to the consumer in that State, or they can say, here's the charge for sales taxes in your State, or they can say anything in between, as long as they don't fraudulently take more than they will forward to your State.

In brief and in effect, the sales tax is a tax on a company's sales within or into a State, it is not a tax on consumption by those within a State. The State simply provides a tax break and looks the other way on the passing on of those taxes on sales to the consumer.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I see nothing in the bill requiring States with no sales taxes to do anything. If businesses in no sales tax States want to avoid collecting sales taxes from customers in States with sales taxes they don't have to sell them stuff.

Oh that is a great deal. They can avoid doing unpaid work by just quitting.

Originally posted by JS357
Would someone refute me on this? Please?

The company in a state with no sales taxes that sells to consumers in a State with sales taxes doesn't have to "collect" sales taxes from customers in that State. All they have to do is forward to the State imposing those sales taxes, the sales tax that that State requires for sales into that State. They can still sa ...[text shortened]... break and looks the other way on the passing on of those taxes on sales to the consumer.

"The company in a state with no sales taxes that sells to consumers in a State with sales taxes doesn't have to "collect" sales taxes from customers in that State. All they have to do is forward to the State imposing those sales taxes, the sales tax that that State requires for sales into that State."

Yes they could do that, if they are so profitable that an extra 6% to 12% doesn't effect their bottom line. That's of course why Furniture stores often offer to "pay your sales tax" locally. A 6% discount is chickenfeed, when at times they offer 50% off, or BOGO and the like.

At the very least, they are being asked to be a collector for a State in which they are not located, and which is imposing additional costs on them, and which is negating a competitive advantage they gained for locating where they did.