Posted on 03/05/2011 3:40:24 AM PST by djf
Given the huge amount of controversy about California (770 miles long, 250 miles wide) vs. Amazon...
California has decided it wants to worry more about some fish than the central valley, which has been one of the highest, most prolific, profitable areas in the world for years (remember "The Grapes of Wrath" and "Chinatown"? I suspect the tax revenue California might get from a booming central valley exceeds Amazons total revenue by billions. But CA decides it would rather go after an entity in another state. Do you know what they call it when an organism manages to not produce it's own energy and instead lives off of the energy and efforts of another?
They call it a parasite.
Regardless. Let's set that aside for the moment. The guys who came up with the Constitution were not looking for a perfect government. I suspect they pretty much all would admit that humans are never perfect.
But they were looking for a far better government than what they had lived with. And they were committed to their own individual States, and familiar with the economies and benefits that each enjoyed.
The statement above, Art. 1, Sec 9, Par 5 is quite clear.
Each state would be on equal economic footing as the others, at least in that it would not loose whatever small economic advantages it had.
So a small state that produced whatever, say timber for example, would not lose that work and advantage to a large state that wanted to tax the hell out of it.
The same kind of situation now exists with those who glorify the "global economy", and rant against duties and tariffs. The founders knew very well our early limitations against Europe. They wanted to develop self sufficiency. Duties and tariffs are only a way of leveling the playing field against other countries/players that for whatever reason, can supply things (at least for the moment) cheaper.
I cannot believe how far we have strayed from these ideas.
/rant over/
You're not "bursting his bubble", you're agreeing with him. He says California has in everything but name unConstitutionally imposed taxes on interstate commerce, is attempting to compound their abuse of our rights under color of authority, and that's the same thing you said. Interstate commerce is not subject to state taxation. Period.
My pleasure.
Thanks.
You covered it well.
It doesn’t say “SOME tax or duty...” or “A TEENSY WEENSY tax or duty...” or the ever popular “A USE tax or duty...”
It says “NO TAX OR DUTY...”
What motivated me to post this really wasn’t Amazon, even though it seems to be the tax-de-jour.
I am a smoker (I know, bad, bad, BAD) and I never could figure out how tobacco could get taxed so much. I mean for the states that grow tobacco, they are heavily dependent on that for their economy.
But you often see these things in court cases where they manage to just skirt around the issue at hand by giving something a different name or flavor and managing to “lawyer up” the issue.
regards,
djf
I confess, I've been a smoker for the better part of 50 years. During my time in the service in the late 60's I thought I'd died and gone to heaven with the overseas price of Marlboros being $1.00 a carton. Returning stateside in 1970 and re-encountering real world prices around 40 cents/pack I thought WTH, is ALL this taxes??? Turns out it wasn't but, close enough. I remember telling myself if they ever hit 50 cents/pack I'd quit before paying that much! The justification for continuing to smoke after 50 cents a pack was by the carton they were STILL under 50 cents a pack at ~$4.50. Once Marlboros went over $5/carton I said oh what the hell. BTW, remember when cigarette machines were everywhere???
Anyhow, the government's actions towards taxing SOUTHERN tobacco is nothing short of despicable BUT I've been more or less a proponent of using taxes to encourage or discourage certain behaviors, incentives for home ownership for example, so I really can't squeal too loudly about ciggie taxes. On the other hand, why don't we have greater tax incentives for personal savings in this country??? There's probably a story there somewhere...
Anyway, smoking is a NASTY habit(addiction?) to be sure and I didn't need a surgeon general telling me it probably wouldn't do me any good in the long run. I can't get out to my mail box and back without becoming winded. We make our choices and suffer any consequences; such is life...
Still, seems to me there should be no way to LEGITIMATELY get around something as plain as “NO TAX OR DUTY...”
At least not with a straight face.
What’s to stop Virginia from striking back and say they are imposing a “use tax” on oranges?
I generally agree regarding fees on products "imported" from other states by end users. Also, products "imported" for resale aren't generally taxed AFAIK. At point of sale by a retailer to an end user within the state is the only place it SHOULD be applied. A sore spot with me, in Texas at least, is a recurring tax on personal property each time it's sold/purchased; vehicles, boats and the like. Anyway, the federales present a whole 'nother problem, er, issue however.
I’m not sure what your definition of “unconstitutional” is. It clearly is not interpreted as unconstitutional, as most states have such a tax, and nobody has successfully challenged those laws. And given how people feel about paying taxes, if there was a chance that it could be unconstitutional, some lawyer would have done a class action suit long ago.
The biggest court case on this matter found that a state has no right to require a company that has no interests in a state to collect the sales tax for the state. The court did NOT say that the state couldn’t require those taxes to be paid, something that would have been germaine to the case if it had any merit.
I’m also not sure what “pretense” you are refering to. A “sales tax” is a tax collected when an item is sold. a “use tax” is a tax paid for the value of an item used. You pay “use tax” for items that are purchased for use by a resident within the state. It is specifically to capture the same tax as the sales tax; every example I’ve found is set to the same value, the taxes are described together in every state that I’ve checked. There is no deception about the relationship between the two taxes.
Catfish fishing bump! ;o) My granddaddy used to hit them on the head with a hammer to get them to...uh...to the point where they could be fileted, breaded and put in the fryer. lol
As of now, sales taxes aren’t levied on internet sites. However, I believe that IL’s recently passed tax increases allowed for that tax, and Amazon pulled out of the state.
If I’m incorrect, I hope someone will clear that up for me.
LOL! What am I saying? Of course, if I’m wrong, someone will clear that up for me! ;o)
“As of now, sales taxes aren’t levied on internet sites.”
I do the dirty deed, and clear that up, myself.
In Oregon, whenever I shop in the internet, there are no sales taxes levied because we don’t have a sales tax.
But, I bet sales taxes are levied on states who have them.
‘Scuse me...;o)
As near as I can recall from what little shopping I've done online from Texas, there has been no sales/use taxes/duties/tariffs applied. BUT in all honesty, I haven't really paid that much attention so I wouldn't say that's definitive. Texas DOES have a sales tax but I gather they haven't figured out a way yet to stiff tax online shoppers.
Interdiction of interstate trade while pretending you're not by calling it a use tax. A use tax that only applies when a sales tax does not. I agree with you by the way, that it is in fact a sales tax. But you'll notice they go out of their way to call it something other than a sales tax. Why? Could it be because they realize they'd be on thin Constitutional ice if it were a sales tax? (which it is)
The biggest court case on this matter found that a state has no right to require a company that has no interests in a state to collect the sales tax for the state. The court did NOT say that the state couldn’t require those taxes to be paid, something that would have been germaine to the case if it had any merit.
I know. File that with Dred Scott, Slaughter Houses, Wickard, Roe, Kelo, Raich, Bean, Casey, etc. That's what I do. Maybe someday the'll fix it. Or maybe we'll all just stop caring.
I guess I have a different interpretation of why they call it a “use tax”. I haven’t stumbled across any source material on that subject, so I assume it is because government doesn’t want to confuse people by calling it a sales tax, since people will think “I don’t have to worry about that, sales tax is paid by companies when I buy things”.
In reading various state laws and write-ups on sales and use tax, I see no indication they are trying to use “use tax” to circumvent some sort of constitutional review of a “sales tax”. Further, if there were such a constitutional issue, I believe that distinquishing a “use tax” would be more likely to trip over it, since, as you point out, a “use tax” is ONLY collected on things that didn’t get a sales tax, which means things that “come in from out-of-state”.
However, that is not really accurate; many items you buy from out-of-state are charged a sales tax. The only time you don’t get charged a sales tax is if you order from a company that the state can’t force to collect the sales tax. The Supreme Court has always been fine with having sales tax collected on out-of-state purchases; I haven’t seen any state try to charge MORE for them, which could well raise an issue.
Interesting point. Wonder if anyone's ever considered using that as an attack vector.
You’re in Texas? Boy howdy...that’s great! I love Texas!
Each state is different, and online “stores” are bound by the each state’s tax code.
By definition, that makes us a representative Republic, instead of a democracy.
So...........everytime you hear a union person say that this isn’t a democracy, you say, “Yes...you’re right...it isn’t.”
;o)
Nah, then they'll end up thinking you agree with them.
Better to say “Yes...you’re right...and it was never meant to be.”
“Better to say “Yes...you’re right...and it was never meant to be.”
There ya’ go...a great answer!
I love it! Thank you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.