Posted on 07/26/2008 1:01:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
Federalism, a system of dual sovereigns and multiple levels of government, was envisioned by the founders a method of protecting and securing individual rights. The concentration of power in a single sovereign was viewed with much skepticism by the founders, inasmuch as concentrated power was apt to be abused (which is what they’d fought a revolution over, after all). Federalism has also offered the benefit of spurring competition amongst the states, whose differing policies offer a variety of attributes to attract (or repel) potential residents.
Among these competitions is if and how taxes are collected. Florida and Texas, for instance, collect no taxes on income, making them very attractive for people who can easily choose their states of residency, like retirees. Some states, like Delaware, have no state sales taxes, making them havens for people in neighboring states like Pennsylvania and Maryland, who can simply hop across the border to buy big-ticket items like flat-screen TVs. Likewise, some states have begin to offer ways of offsetting the local taxes residents pay for the “privilege” of receiving cable video service.
Federal laws already prohibit localities from taxing people for purchasing satellite video services. But cable providers are often taxed twice at the local level, with both local sales taxes and so-called “franchise fees”. A few states have responded to the lopsided tax bill by offering cable customers lower state sales tax rates. But for some reason, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the liberal Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wants to put a stop to this sort of tax break for consumers. HR 3679, the fascinatingly named “State Video Tax Fairness Act,” would restrict states from lowering taxes on cable customers, which he presumably believes is “unfair.”
The bill has ostensibly been offered to correct some perceived “inequity” between satellite and cable video providers, although we must remember that the taxes are paid by consumers, not providers. Satellite providers have been fortunate to have a federal law forbidding any local franchise or sales tax to be levied on their customers. Cable providers and customers have no such protection.
While it is certainly worth advocating an end to the somewhat cowardly practice of localities, states, and even the federal government turning video service providers into private “tax collectors,” it would seem to be a sorry state of affairs of we begin to forbid states from lowering the tax burden on citizens. If there is one thing that is certain in this nation, it is that the federal government will eagerly and greedily assume powers and property from the people and will not easily give either back. Furthermore, if states are inclined to give people back some of their hard-earned cash, then it is not the proper role of the federal government to stop them.
The federal government is free to give the people back some of the money it collects in taxes if it perceives some inequity in tax rates and what goods and services are taxed. Should HR 3679 pass, it could open the door to all manner of federal interference in states’ efforts to lower taxes. Who is to say that at some point down the road, a future Congress, acting on the precedent of the so-called “State Video Tax Fairness Act”, wouldn’t move to enact a “State Income Tax Fairness Act”, and prohibit states from offering tax breaks to seniors, small businesses, or college students. Or perhaps they would go a step further, and find that it is “unfair” that some states spurn taxes on income while others tax income?
Federalism, one of the bedrock principles on which this nation was founded, works to protect the people from such gross abuses of power, and ultimately, it is the people who will lose out if HR 3679 passes. Left to their own devices, the people will, time and again, advocate that they should be taxed as little as possible. The Federal government has no business telling them to advocate otherwise.
If this nonsense passes, I can’t wait to see it tested in court! I’m real curious as to the public reaction when the feds tell a state it can’t lower its taxes!
10th Amendment case. The cause for the second Civil War will be “powers reserved to the states”.
In an Absolut world...States to Conyers: Thou shalt STFU!
I’m more curious about how long it will take before Conyers — an indisputably obnoxious moron, is thrown out of Congress.
His wife is already under investigation as a Detroit city councilwoman.....
Such a lovely couple....demonstrating the couple who steals together stays together...
Conyers will leave Congress feet-first. He’s the second-longest serving House member (in there since 1964). He does have a unique distinction however... no member of Congress has had more people FLEE the district with which he has represented in the history of the U.S. Indeed, the district he originally represented in inner-city Detroit has had to be greatly augmented and moved westward in order to make up for the estimated half-million people that exited it since he was first elected. That tells you everything right there.
Conyers (africanhyphenamerican-Detroit) has introduced a reparations bill every year in congress since first elected. When/IF the Messiuh is elected, there will be no chance of a presidential veto. Get yer wallets out honkies.
LOL. I have a feeling reparations just might be the straw that broke the camel’s back. We could end up with a North and South Virginia. Yeah!
THOU shalt not lower taxes
My satellite provider has a whole channel set up to support this bill telling me it would stop my bill from going up.
He is simply a reflection of the majority of voters in his district. Considering that Dearborn and Detroit are pretty much lost causes at this point, the only way Conyers will ever leave Congress is in a box. When that happens, he'll simply be replaced by another commie.
Not that it bothers Congress, but isn’t this incredibly unconstitutional?
It is, as are many things they do, not that that’ll stop ‘em.
BTTT
This isn’t a mistake on FR folks, the website article also uses ‘Though’ instead of “Thou”.
I weep for the loss of good American public education.
There appears to be a correlation between the rise in percentage of blacks living in an area, and:
- Rise in crimes of all types.
- Rise in level of political corruption.
- Decline in outcome of public education.
- Increase in illegitimate births to unwed mothers.
- Increase in numbers requiring taxpayer provided welfare.
- Decline in community vitality, safety and growth.
- Drop in small business investments.
- Loss of industry and the jobs/investments they provide.
- Increase in flight of non-blacks to the suburbs.
Leading one to the conclusion that the more blacks flock into black majority communities, and then vote for those like themselves — the poorer their life prospects become.
It would appear their best hope of escaping the black escalator down to despair is to LEAVE the black ghettos and DISPERSE into the non-black communities to escape the Leftist and Black Racist plantations of despair..
Obama accomplished NOTHING of significance to improve the lot of blacks in his Chicago district in all the years he spent there...
WHY do we accept that as his qualification to lead the country?
Thanks, Detroit!/s
Too bad the antics of Monica won't have any effect on the reelection of this ***clown.
We shall lower the boom, then lower taxes.
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.