Sure, in the final tally, nobody benefits but the government. But revenue is revenue, and the ends justify the means.
Also, the TEA Party is a bunch of racist fringe extremists looking to take us back to the days of slavery and state sanctioned lynchings. Which is an unrelated observation, but I figured I throw it out there anyway.
“no taxation without representation.”
Fuckall, we’re well beyond that limitation at this juncture, since we now sit comfortably in the “taxation with misrepresentation” zone. Democrats, having executed this advance in political theory, will be damned if they’ll give it up.
More like “Internet Tax Bill Would Encourage Commerce Without Paperwork,” if you ask me. I mean, Greece’s problem isn’t that it has no economy — it’s that a huge fraction of it is never reported to the authorities. We’re already seeing the development of internet-facilitated barter networks. Combine a heavy-handed tax regime with a currency that’s quickly losing value, and you have yourself a perfect environment for grey-market transactions. And there’s simply no way that IRS or Treasury or Congress could hope to keep up — they’d be routed around or bought off quicker than the trade lobbyists could draft new rules.
As a great leader once said: “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”
Dick Cheney before he dicks you.
– As more and more of the economy shifts to internet purchases and general trade there is no way in hell that government will keep its greedy debt ridden fingers off such a big fat tempting plum.
– It is not a question of if, just when and to what extent. They a;ready tax cable access, so probably that will be the first serious lever, to be followed at some point with trade taxes on all financial transactions. Call it just another national sales tax of sorts.
– I suppose we should be grateful we’ve been able to duck it up until now.
– Now shut up maggot and eat your peas.
Just anecdotally, here is Flyover Land, I’ve seen an uptick in black market goods, mainly furniture and appliances. So far, there hasn’t been any reporting or police activity about same.
Yet.
After Leviathan decides to tax internet retail, there will be a veritable avalanche of “like new” goods sold on eBay and Craigslist and the like. Then the staunch conservatives in Congress will slap a tax on sales of used goods, I’m sure.
That’s such a reasonable prediction I’m convinced that is exactly what will happen, Squid.
Predicting unreasonable behavior is only reasonable.
I don’t know Squid, The government seems serious about tracking every thing and everybody on the internet.
I’m surprised there is a law against the Federal government disseminating propaganda in the U.S., since they seem to be doing it already.
OT but just came across this over at Insty’s.
Penn State writ large?
Penn State writ large?
Add the Brandon Darby story from this morning and it looks like the primary interest of the Democrat party is in preserving perverts access to children.
(Kinda explains why 4chan/Anonymous leans there way, though.)
Cause seriously. If all they offer is the possibility of even more roads, even fatter pensions, and even more regulation if you are diligent to pay all your taxes…
Jeff G: “Internet Tax Bill Would Allow Taxation Without Representation”
Sales taxes are paid by the consumer, so they have representation in their state of residence, as well as at the federal level. A valid issue is the reporting requirements, but there should be a technological solution.
Read and comprehend, Zach.
… and a dutiful bot begins a new day.
. A valid issue is the reporting requirements, but there should be a technological solution.
Not to switch topics, but that reminds me of this piece I read this morning
Apparently – so far -it’s a disaster. Only 13 states are making any progress on this vast plot, and even those aren’t doing so hot.
The problem, here, is that the sellers and the tax collectors have different representation. I shouldn’t have to point that out.
Putting on my consistency hat: sales taxes are collected from the seller at the point of sale. If you claim that sales taxes are paid by the consumer even though collected from the seller, imagine what that does to the claim that corporate taxes aren’t paid by the corporation’s customers. Why, that would mean that…corporate taxes are more regressive than income tax!
Given the left’s obsession with For Everything, There Must Be A Policy, all that’s lacking is a policy for the policy of implementing the policy. In other words, it’s a mere policy issue, and all that’s needed is some new legislation to enact the policy to implement the policy that supports the policy.
Sorry, that last one was for Carin.
Given the left’s obsession with For Everything, There Must Be A Policy, all that’s lacking is a policy for the policy of implementing the policy. In
Perhaps what we need here is an executive order?
A line springs to mind, unbidden:
Slartibartfast: The problem, here, is that the sellers and the tax collectors have different representation. I shouldn’t have to point that out.
Yes, but the sellers want to send their products into a different state, so they have to meet that state’s requirements, including product safety and tax laws. In addition, they have representation on the federal level, and can lobby against any law which requires them to collect sales tax for out of state sales.
Slartibartfast: If you claim that sales taxes are paid by the consumer even though collected from the seller, imagine what that does to the claim that corporate taxes aren’t paid by the corporation’s customers.
Except that corporate taxes are levied on the corporation, while sales taxes are levied on the consumer.
We’re headed for a country where it’s policies all the way down.
But if state tax laws currently say the buyer pays, as you claim, then the burden does not lie on the seller.
completely evades the question of who pays the tax.
I’m guessing it’s the +12agility WWP item.
Side salad for me, chicken sandwiches with apples on the side for the girls, and a double Baconator and extra-large fries and large Frostee for Michelle, please.
Casuistry is best left to Jesuits.
I note that Zach takes no issue with Jeff’s second paragraph. Sooper Jeenius probably thinks Jeff was being serious.
Zachriel is always filled with shoulds, isn’t he?
Dude is obviously bucking for Political Commissar.
“Except that corporate taxes are levied on the corporation, while sales taxes are levied on the consumer.”
And a corporation obtains funds from investors and consumers and the investors see to it that the cost of those corporate taxes are passed on to the consumers.
Thus it is the consumers actually pay them.
Do you know ANYTHING that is not pablum or a mere platitude Zachariel? Anything at all? Everything you post is straight from the frehsman’s guide to not really understanding anything.
Oh wait…I forgot that corporations NOW enjoy subsidies if they please the left even if they don’t please investors or consumers. So that is a third source of money. Of course paying your taxes and debts with subsidies (be they a forgivable sweet heart loan or a grant) is absurd.
Slartibartfast: completely evades the question of who pays the tax.
Corporate taxes are levied on corporations, just like income taxes are levied on workers, even though both of these costs may be passed on to consumers.
palaeomerus: Thus it is the consumers actually pay them.
Yes, they may. However, that isn’t relevant to the legal jurisdiction where the taxes are levied, which was the point at issue. The question concerned whether forcing a corporation in California to collect taxes levied against a consumer in Missouri meant that the corporation was being taxed without representation. Turns out that the corporation is represented in the U.S. Congress, which has the explicit constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. As for a say in the Missouri tax rate, that’s irrelevant to the corporation as the effort to collect the tax is the same regardless of rate.
The government needs no more taxes. They already misuse the revenue they have.
We don’t want your solutions. They fail everywhere they’re tried. Go away.
Jeff G: The government needs no more taxes. They already misuse the revenue they have.
That’s a completely separate argument. The solution is to cut the size of government, which for most states would mean reducing Medicaid and other social programs.
That’s a completely separate argument. The solution is to cut the size of government, which for most states would mean reducing Medicaid and other social programs.
Bahaa haa haaa …
Whatever Zach.
That’s a completely different argument than the one you are making. To me, it’s the same argument.
Jeff G: That’s a completely different argument than the one you are making. To me, it’s the same argument.
You claimed that the “Internet Tax Bill Would Allow Taxation Without Representation”. We addressed that argument. Now, you argue that government doesn’t need more money because it misuses the money it does have.
He also said “Go away.” Don’t tell me you missed that.
Well heck, morons often have trouble understanding plain English Pablo. And little martinet propagandists of tyranny often think they’ve no need to attempt to understand, since they’re so committed to forcing other people to obey the rules they’re making up as they go along. This one fits both conditions, so double trouble.
Actually, that’s the article headline I linked to. Which is why it has quotation marks around it. Maybe follow the link and share your knowledge with the people who wrote it. I believe they did an entire study and everything.
As for me, I don’t want the government collecting more money, nor do I believe they have some right to it.