It didn’t impose a new tax, it changed when they had to send in the money, to make it the same as other excise tax collections.
I’m guessing there is some sort of interest rate involved, such that by waiting 3 months the government gets a little extra money, but 4 million over 10 years is a rather small amount of extra money.
And I’d guess Ron Paul opposed it because he probably opposes having ANY excise tax, and therefore wouldn’t vote to change the date of collection because that would implicitly accept the notion of an excise tax. It’s how he thinks, and so long as it makes no difference in passing a bill, he has that luxury. If he had actually caused this fix to fail, I would bet he wouldn’t have voted this way.
I say that because he voted to oppose the payroll tax holiday when it didn’t matter, but when his lone objection would have stopped them from passing it last Christmas, he pointedly stayed out of town rather than making that objection.
I should have read further before I made the leap. I realized my error after the fact but thanks for your explanation.
posted on 01/23/2012 2:56:14 PM PST
(God help us for we are deep in trouble.)
You may be right in your guess that Paul voted against it as a protest against the tax, but there are a couple of other possibilities.
Ron Paul and the NRA have a bit of a history of antagonism because he views them as too eager to compromise and they view him as a nut.
The bill summary suggests another reason or two:
8/16/2010--Public Law. (This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on June 29, 2010. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Firearms Excise Tax Improvement Act of 2010 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to require: (1) excise taxes on recreational equipment to be due and payable on the date for filing the return for such taxes (i.e., quarterly); and (2) the Secretary of the Treasury to assess and collect, in the same manner as delinquent taxes are assessed and collected, mandatory orders of restitution for victims of crime. Increases by 0.25% in the third quarter of 2015 the estimated tax payments of corporations with assets of not less than $1 billion. Provides for compliance of the budgetary effects of this Act with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
The bolded bit contains a couple of things he might question. What is that 2015 estimated tax payment increase for big corporations doing in there?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson