Americans better start electing political candidates who understand and support the US Constitution....or it’s all over and it will be a slow death for the US and the states too.
Good post, djf.
“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.”
You can see the criminals in the states defying the commerce clause everyday. If you buy an auto in a state with a 3% sales tax and your state charges a 7% tax, you are required, under penalty of death, to pay an extra tax. The state criminals call it a “user fee.”
That is illegal.
States are desperate for money and will be trying just about anything to get it, even if it means trying things that have already been tried and failed. But they’ll keep doing it until the courts slap injunctions on them. It’s a sorry state of affairs we have. Restoration of Constitutional order is the only answer to this because going out of bounds is what brought us down.
Back in January 2001, the financial regulatory structure amended the recourse rule in Basel I to reduce the reserve requirements for government bonds and securities purchased from the GSEs to zero, making it much cheaper for financial institutions to invest in those than many other kinds of investments that would have likely gone to the private sector instead. Of course the effects of redirecting investment money to securities from the GSEs is quite obvious, but the other is now starting to become quite clear.
Not only was the private sector starved of money and terms like “outsourcing” and “off shoring” entered into pop culture, but governemnts gobbled up the money by the truck load. And since government doesn’t produce wealth, we are all the poorer for it when it’s time to start repaying it all with interest because we took all that potentially productive capital and didn’t do productive things with it.
And the politicians have the nerve to tell us that lack of regulation caused all this. What a crock of crap.
Yet another Constitutional restriction violated.
Read through the Constitution and look at all the little things they do that would be considered violations in an earlier time. We’ve let them get away with far too much and it’s not getting better any time soon without intervention. (Can the Tea Party do it?)
But the only way to get the genie back into the bottle will be nasty, and most people won’t support the severe restrictions (e.g. limits on entitlements) that would result. So do we storm the Bastille without our valiant 20 percent?
The Totalitarian left have turned all words on their heads.
The Commerce Clause meant Free-Trade and non-interference.
Thanks to bastardization by Totalitarians, it now means the exact opposite, total interference by the Central State into every economic activity.
Chinatown (movie) was about irrigation rights in Los Angeles not up in delta smelt land
sfl
Your reasoning is flawed, and therefore your conclusion is unpersuasive.
You make the mistake many do, of failing to understand what California, and other states, are actually proposing.
There is no “tax” on Amazon. There is no “Tax” associated with shipping things across state lines.
There is a “Sales Tax”, a tax that a state is legally allowed to apply to it’s own residents for things they purchase. There has long been sales tax in California, on items purchased by Californians — Including items that were purchased over the internet.
The issue here is whether Amazon, a company selling items to people in California, can be required to collect Sales Tax for California. Companies that have business interests within a state (a “nexus”) can be required to collect sales tax for the state as a cost of doing business.
And when they buy something from a company that has NO business in the state, they STILL have to pay sales tax — but the purchasers have to track it, and pay it directly. IT’s the law, and anybody who doesn’t pay tax on what they buy over the internet is a TAX CHEATER.
But, Amazon does have business interests in the state. Amazon has argued that those interested do not rise to the level where they should collect sales tax from their customers. California is arguing that it can.
Amazon is fighting this because Amazon like tax cheaters, and makes money by enabling people to cheat on their taxes, and thus undercutting businesses who have to collect the sale taxes.
It is surprising how many good conservatives just don’t know that they are required by state law to pay the sales tax themselves if a company doesn’t collect it for them. And then they find out, they make all these excuses about why they should be allowed to cheat on their taxes.
That means the consumer is ultimately responsible to pay the tax, as everybody who collects it for the State already knows. HOWEVER, the seller within the State needs a "seller's permit," which requires that they collect the tax. Oh, but that makes it a "SALES tax," doesn't it?
Hence, for the State to claim that Amazon must do anything is to admit that it IS a sales tax. Everybody, including State officers, calls it that while legally claiming that it is something else.
They can't have it both ways. Hence, for the State to claim Amazon MUST collect it for them is to outsource collections services, for which they should pay. If Amazon doesn't want to do it, the State must figure out how to collect.
WARNING TO YOU OUT-OF-STATE PEOPLE WHO THINK THIS DOES NOT AFFECT YOU, ESPECIALLY YOU IDIOT "FAIR TAX" ADVOCATES: California is broke. They will do anything to collect this tax in order to keep spending. That means they will probably institute, with Federal collusion, electronic means to track every shipment by which to collect the money. That means they would have the software and infrastructure developed by which to control the shipment of every private transaction. "You will not be able to buy or sell" without government getting its take.
Does that sound at all familiar?
Excellent post.
Thanks djf.
Charlie, “Fight Dirty”
“California”
The first time I met you, I tried to forget you
You showed me the worst of your sides
But all that I’d seen was that town full of dreams
Where people are living out lies
Now I’ve been back and seen the other side of you
And from where I stand, well, I must say I like the view
Surrender ... I surrender
Back here on earth I’m dreaming of sunshine, good times
For whatever it’s worth, I’m coming back
So hold on, it’s not too late, I said
Hold on, I can’t wait
California ... California
Your place of extremes where there’s no inbetweens
Oh, you can be one living hell
You’ve still got your dreamers, your liars and your schemers
But you can be heaven as well
‘Cause now I’ve learnt there’s more to you than meets the eye
You’ve got me hooked, I’m coming back and that’s no lie
I’ll be there ... I will be there
I just can’t wait ‘til I can be with you right through
They call you the Golden State, so I’ll
Hold on, they’re not wrong, I said
Hold on, can’t wait too long
California ... California
Now don’t get me wrong, I have lived here so long
And my home it always will be
‘Cause when I’m away I can’t wait for the day
To get back to my sanity
But knowing you is like some crazy love affair
So if I leave don’t ever think that I don’t care
About you ... care about you
I’m six thousand miles away from those bright lights, warm nights
Could take me some time, but I’ll be there
So hold on, it’s not too late, I said
Hold on, I can’t wait
California ... California
I was aware of this thread but couldn't call up the mental faculties at the time to focus on it but it is truly an interesting problem and discussion. Looks like one of the few areas where the federales actually have some bona fide Constitutional power under the "commerce clause". The court cases cited tend to follow the letter of the Constitution by NOT allowing interstate tariffs/duties/taxes, etc., although from my perch there looks to be occasional workarounds by various States in one way or another. Imagine that.
As a practical matter I don't see any solution to the issue aside from some sort of feral government intervention. If history is any lesson, we can probably conclude THAT would not work out well. Maybe the States should just get over it and concede the point but especially in the current economic environment, what are the odds?
~~pinging~~ for more input.
does this mean states can’t collect internet taxes because it would inhibit commerce of smaller states?