Posted on 06/25/2006 8:10:40 PM PDT by SheLion
I didn't say your understanding of them was dependent on sales tax versus cig tax.
I said they make sense to you because you dislike smoking.
They don't make sense to me whether you're buying cigarettes, cars, clothes, or a yacht.
Why would they make more sense to me because I dislike smoking when I first encountered these laws when I smoked and when I was learning sales tax laws?
Because they are intentionaly targeting, at the present time, smokers who buy their cigs from someone that sells them at a lower price.
Don't tell me that you disagree with the tactic. There is more than enough proof, even on this thread alone, that you agree with it.
The laws themselves are and do make sense and have been tested to be constitutional in their application. The tactics being used are intentional. They are intentionally targeted tax cheats.
If the state did not enforce its laws that would be a problem, wouldn't it? Should the law abiding smoking taxpayers as well as all taxpayers cover the cost of tax cheats? On this point you and I disagree. I don't think of them as patriots. I think of them as self absorbed criminals even if they are addicted. Their addiction should not be an excuse to break a law.
The place we might find common ground is on the amount of tax. The application and enforcement is fair and constitutional. However, the amount of the tax takes advantage of people who are addicted and because of their addiction they have little choice but to pay.
I feel sorry for them and think the least the state can do is provide free nonsmoking programs or discounted cessation products to these taxpayers if they want to tax them heavily.
No, if they were doing that they would be asking EVERY internet vendor, not just the ones selling prepackaged cigarettes, for their client list and going after EVERYONE that bought ANYTHING out of state on the internet.
Instead they are intentionally targeting smokers.
I think of them as self absorbed criminals even if they are addicted. Their addiction should not be an excuse to break a law.
Oh yeh, bring addiction into this now. Habituation is not addiction.
And don't try to change the subject so blatantly.
However, the amount of the tax takes advantage of people who are addicted and because of their addiction they have little choice but to pay.
Addiction, blah, blah, addiction, blaaaaaaaaah.
Stop trying to change the subject.
I feel sorry for them and think the least the state can do is provide free nonsmoking programs or discounted cessation products to these taxpayers if they want to tax them heavily.
Oh.........My........God
Your socialistic tendencies are showing, Ray.
If a purchaser can find a product cheaper from a vendor in another state, whether because of extortionist taxes or not, they should be allowed to buy from that vendor and not be charged the extorionist taxes from their home state. Period.
So you don't believe in state sovereignty. In your perfect world who would protect private property rights?
Now we are into an entirely different subject. Stop trying to change the subject.
IMO, state sovereignity has nothing to do with a state taxing it's citizens, note: NOT subjects, for purchases not physically made in that state.
Others may disagree with that and probably have since you say it's legal for the state to do that.
Private property rights have nothing to do with this. Nothing at all.
Its is very simple. If the state is barred from taxing its citizens on out of state purchases it essentially bars it from taxes its citizens at all. For example car and other large purchases would all be made out of state. Then the same logic would extend to the income tax. Your concept would fully undermine the tax system of each state and force states to either appeal to the federal government to establish a federal system or force them to enter into a pact whereby they create a nationalized system of taxation.
Trust me, you don't want to establish the system you suggest because you would not like the result.
Bzzzzzzzzzzz Wrong. Are you going to go elsewhere unless the tax rate of your home state on an individual product is extortianate?
For example car and other large purchases would all be made out of state.
At that point the state in question brings it's tax rates to be in line with the other states and, viola, no problem.
Then the same logic would extend to the income tax.
As it should and already does. I don't pay income tax to my state on wages made in another state. I pay income tax to the OTHER state for wages made in THAT state.
Your concept would fully undermine the tax system of each state and force states to either appeal to the federal government to establish a federal system or force them to enter into a pact whereby they create a nationalized system of taxation.
Bull, it would only stop extortianate state taxes on individual products or create a revolution because ALL the states would tax at an extortionate rate.
If your state taxes an individual product at a less rate than others then your state pulls the taxes for that product. If the other states don't want to come in line with your state's rates they lose out.
What makes the free market OK for businesses but not states?
So you want the state to be allowed to tax nonresidents or fix it so states cannot tax. Which is it?
You folks really shouldn't do your own taxes. Your home state taxes you on all of your income.
Non-starter, states ALREADY taxes nonresidents.
If I go to another state and buy something I pay that state their tax.
On this entire issue, I'm saying, "BE CONSISTENT".
If the state is going to go after one group of people for taxes owed, on a particular product bought in a particular manner OR out-of-state, go after all groups of people, that do the same thing, for all products.
Don't single out one product or group of people.
Do it and start the revolution.
I live in Missouri and work in Kansas.
I file a state income tax form but none of my income tax goes to Missouri.
You can tell me all you want about how that happens. It doesn't matter. I pay no money to Missouri.
In any case, we aren't talking about income taxes so stop trying to change the subject!
If you don't go there you want them to be able to tax you.
You really shouldn't be doing your onw taxes.
BZZZZZZZZZZZT...Wrong.
The Federal Government taxes all of my husband's income......the Commonwealth of Virginia (home state) taxes a part of it as do the states of Delaware and Maryland.
Your income is fully included in your home state return. Just like those smokers who happen to pay and out of state tax on cig's, you get a credit for the amount of tax paid to another state. If this tax paid to another state equals or exceeds your home state tax their is no add'l amount due.
However, ALL your income is subject to your home state tax.
If you folks got your wish then the only remedy that states would have is either federalize the tax thru the federal gov't or do it by agreement.
You folks really don't want the remedy you suggest. Trust me.
PS. You too, really ought not do your own taxes.
i'm sorry I missed this becase unless you understand that the interstate commerce laws cannot be different for income tax than they are for cig tax then I understand why you think this is changing the subject.
To get the result you claim you want, the change would affect all taxes and essentially remove in practice the states right to raise revenue by taxing its residents. You would be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I don't do my own taxes anymore, after nearly 20 years of doing not only mine, but those of others, I got sick and bloody tired of it. Last year we filed returns for 3 states..........I know what I am talking about.
Withholding taxes throughout the year are withheld in proportionate amounts from all 3 states...I know I get credit for what is withheld from the other states come filing time - but that is not what I said - I said withholding...or can't you read?
Typical nanny-state mentality........have to change the subject to fit your own agenda - regardless of the subject.
Like I said, you can explain all you want to. Missouri get's no money from me for income tax.
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.