Jay Leno said a mouthful (pun intended) with this video.
Explain to me how taxing the internet is not raising taxes on the little guy because, frankly, I don’t get it.
In my simple little mind, I think that a federal intervention that allows the states to slap a sales tax on the things we buy on Amazon and Ebay is, well, slapping a national sales tax on mom, pop, you and me.
One thing I’ve always admired about Republican tax policy is that they don’t make any bones about the fact that they want to tax everybody but the rich and give to nobody but the rich. They are right out front with their intention to use the national treasure as a piggy bank for corporations and anybody else in the top 5% who wants some.
The Democrats, on the other hand, try to be more fair, or at least they do part of the time. Out of all the deficit-enhancing tax cuts that Congress has passed in the last 13 years, only one showed up in my paycheck. That was the temporary reformulation that President Obama used to try to stimulate us out of fiscal armageddon when he first took office in ’08.
I believe he promised something about not raising taxes on us working stiffs. It went something like this:
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, not any of your taxes.”
That sounds fairly comprehensive to me. However, nothing that anybody in Washington says to we the people appears to matter all that much to them. In fact, I’m beginning to get the feeling that they tell us stuff so that we will believe it, so that they can do the opposite.
The President’s no-tax-on-the not-rich is a case in point. It appears that he didn’t mean that he wouldn’t tax gouge the little guy when taxes are “unfair.” What is an “unfair” tax? It appears that a tax is “unfair” when the Chamber of Commerce says that it’s unfair.
In the effort to achieve “tax fairness” the United States Senate has pushed a measure that would require consumers to start paying sales tax on internet purchases. They claim, however, that this is not a tax increase. It will take money out of your pocket and put it in the government’s pocket, true. But it’s still not a tax increase and only the addlepated and simple-minded think that it is.
Personally, I don’t think anybody believes that. I do think that hired guns who lobby Congress for Wal Mart, et al, and the Congressmen who get campaign donations from the same, will recite this claptrap until their noses grow out and sprout leaves. But they don’t believe it. They’re just hoping that the American people will be passive and dumb enough to let them get away with it.
They are calling this “tax fairness,” as if any missed tax gouge on the American people was somehow a breach of morals. I love that. I hear the same kind of nonsense every time a bill that will hurt the people gets tossed at us in the Oklahoma House. “Tax fairness” means that if this thing passes, you and I are going to get a tax hike ranging from 9 or 15% on the things we buy on the internet.
Wal Mart is the main proponent of this kind of legislation in Oklahoma, just as they are in Congress. Personally, I think it’s kind of hilarious, hearing a Wal Mart hired gun tell me that all Wal Mart wants is a level playing field. I know people who had small businesses before Wal Mart came into their neighborhood. I’ve heard the way these guys negotiated with them.
This is about limiting competition. A Reuters article on this subject said that “Prospects for the bi-partisan measure are murkier in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where some Republicans view it as a tax increase.”
Since we are dealing with Puppet people congressmen, anything can happen. If the pressure goes up, we might very well see some evolving door Republicans on taxes as well as social issues.
In meantime, would somebody really, really smart please explain to me again how this is not a tax increase?
I’m just too simple to get it.
(Reuters) – A measure to empower U.S. states to require out-of-state retailers to collect online sales tax cleared a legislative hurdle in the Senate on Monday, after earlier winning official backing from President Barack Obama.
Seventy-four senators voted to limit debate and move forward with a final vote on the proposed legislation in the Democratic-controlled Senate, likely on Wednesday.
“You have businesses all around America on Main Streets and shopping malls collecting sales tax on the things that they sell, competing with Internet retailers who do not,” said Democratic co-sponsor Senator Richard Durbin.
Supporters of the measure include brick-and-mortar retailers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc and Best Buy Co Inc and cash-strapped state governments, along with Amazon.com Inc, which hopes to simplify its U.S. state retail tax situation. Opponents include many online merchants, including eBay Inc and Overstock.com Inc.
Prospects for the bipartisan measure are murkier in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where some Republicans view it as a tax increase.
Lobbyists on both sides are working to make their case in Congress. Several new wrinkles emerged on Monday, a key one being that the Obama administration for the first time officially backed the measure.