Connecticut ping!
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
Posted on 04/16/2007 1:33:04 PM PDT by Puppage
(Hartford-WTNH) _ The Democrat's new plan calls for extending the 6% sales tax to all purchases on the internet. In order to do that, lawmakers will have to eliminate the exemption for clothing that costs less than $50.
Currently, when you buy an article of clothing that costs less than $50 in the state of Connecticut, it is tax free. It is a long-standing exemption aimed at helping people pay for the necessities.
"The clothing exemption would be eliminated and Mr. and Mrs. Connecticut will end up paying an additional $135-million in taxes on their clothing. It's a bad idea," said Senator William Nickerson.
Today the Finance Committee gives final approval to the Democrats tax plan that eliminates that exemption. They are doing it so they can tax your purchases on the internet. In order to join other states in collecting sales tax on internet purchases, the tax has to be on every dollar. Otherwise the state can not participate and will miss out on an estimated $500-million a year in sales tax revenue.
Governor Rell says it is not worth it to lose the $50-exemption.
"You're talking about a tax on the middle class," said Rell.
The Democrats on this committee feel their tax cuts will more than offset the loss of the $50-clothing exemption.
"We really have to do that to be part of the compact, and we think if we provide relief through another tax mechanism then the burden of paying tax on that first $50 of clothing won't be felt," said State Representative Cameron Staples.
In addition to the internet tax, the Democrat's plan also would hike the cigarette tax another 49-cents a pack.
Connecticut ping!
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
Heck, look what’s happening in our State of Illinois under an all Dem legislature and a Dem Governor. Taxes, I love taxes, I love lots and lots of taxes. He (Rod Blagojevich) wants to pass a new law (taxing of gross receipts) which is worse than a Value Added Tax (VAT) would be. Dig this:
“Wednesday, Mar 7, 2007
* The Daily Herald starts off our coverage of the governor’s budget proposal…
The $60 billion budget - a new state record for spending if enacted - also calls for selling the Illinois Lottery and borrowing $16 billion to shore up the shaky state worker pension system, a new payroll tax on companies that don’t offer health care to employees and revamping riverboat casino taxes. But the Regional Transportation Authority would not receive a requested bailout, and it’ll be up to lawmakers to propose a way to pay for a transportation-centered capital spending plan.
All of that new money for schools and health insurance would flow from a new tax on businesses’ gross receipts the administration projects will fetch $2.6 billion in the first year and $6.3 billion once fully implemented.
* It looks like the Tribune either broke the traditional embargo or did what I did and got a budget book through back channels. Their story is the most complete in the mainstream media…
The gross receipts tax would include a 0.5 percent levy on the transaction of goods and a 1.8 percent levy on service firms, to generate $3 billion in the next budget year and $6 billion yearly when fully operational. The tax would be imposed on revenues that business takes in, regardless of profitability, sources said. […]
Revenues from the gross receipts and payroll taxes would help fund Blagojevich’s recently unveiled Illinois Covered health-care plan, which is eventually aimed at helping 1.5 million uninsured and underinsured state residents get health-care coverage. The administration says the cost of that plan would be low in the next fiscal year. When fully implemented, the administration says the cost would be $2.1 billion a year, through critics contend the figure could go much higher.”
I know it’s been a while, ladies. But here’s one for your lists.
Didn’t we all warn them about this LONG ago? But back then, they just wanted to tax tobacco sold online. Must not’ve been as important then, I guess...
Democrats? Tax cuts? They're joking, right?
Look who’s calling the kettle black. Governor Rell complains about increasing the tax burden on Connecticut taxpayers but at the same time she wants to raise the state income tax. She’s the biggest hypocrite. She’s as big a socialist and communist as the Democrats.
This year’s budget is a real nightmare for CT., taxpayers... No way Rell has the guts to veto it either. Congratulations CT., voters I hope you’re happy now! You’re temper tantrum about Iraq will now zap us all right in the wallet. The downward spiral of the CT., economy will only worsen.
As I stated, this entire scheme is unconstitutional. The last paragraph of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution reads (in pertinent part):
No State shall, without the consent of Congress, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State...
Furthermore, in forming this cartel, the participating states are usurping the enumerated power granted Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
Stopping this scheme is still another reason why we need gutsy strict constructionists appointed as judges in the federal courts!
Some foods (namely “junk foods”) and I think medicine, too.
That’s it...I’m moving...
In FL, we have no sales tax on groceries (junk foods, alcohol yes), medicines (OTC or prescription), and during the “Back to School” sales period, no sales tax on clothing items under $50 when the legislature permits...........
They are idiots.
Food yes
Medicine? Not sure, i never looked
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.