Sick of the race card. But anyway, now dat bitch be in prison, yo!
Sick of the race card. But anyway, now dat bitch be in prison, yo!
Remember, libs, this is what you voted for when you voted for Obama. He endorses this, the Democrats want it to pass, and, thankfully, the Republican House will probably shoot it down, rescuing you from having to pay taxes when you shop from your iPads.
A vote was passed in the Senate on Monday to allow a vote on an Internet sales tax, and the bill received President Obama’s endorsement. Or, to put it more accurately, a bill passed that allows states the option of collecting taxes from Internet sales. Options for states are always preferred over states being obligated to follow orders from a central power that doesn’t know the specific and different needs of each state. If states want their residents to pay a sales tax when shopping online, that’s their right, no matter how stupid that sales tax would be.
One argument for the bill is the same argument for every tax: it will bring in more of revenue for the government (state and local governments, in this case).
So what? The government is not supposed to be constantly devising ways to make money, because what that translates to is constantly devising ways to take money from the citizens. If the government wanted to make money, why doesn’t Congress just pass a law declaring unequivocally that every citizen must write the IRS a check of a certain amount each year under threat of imprisonment? (Of course, isn’t that essentially what they call the “income tax”?)
This bill will kill competition as only the government knows how to do. Right now, most things we purchase online are not taxed. The only additional payment we must make is to cover the shipping costs of venders. Every year, more and more people use the Internet for shopping than they use physical, brick-and-mortar stores. Such competition causes those non-Internet retail outlets to consider the following options: lower our prices to compete with the Internet, or go out of business. Most choose to lower prices, if they can afford it, and if they can’t afford it, hey, that’s the name of the game: risk. Opening and running a business is risky, and you accept those risks and the consequences of taking them when you open up shop.
The Internet sales tax is a case of the government’s doing things backwards, as usual. It is an attempt to “level the playing field,” as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said; non-Internet sales are levied with taxes, so Internet sales should be as well. Government should not be leveling playing fields, period, but if it’s going to, it should level the correct side. By adding a tax onto a revolutionary, truly progressive mark of human achievement and advancement—the ability to buy physical things in a virtual marketplace called the Internet—the government is lowering the rest of retail to the lowest common denominator, which is not unlike what Obama is attempting to do to this country.
I just wish I could see the faces of all those low-information, Internet-loving hipsters who voted for Obama, only for him to endorse an Internet sales tax. That’s what happens when you take your heart to the voting booth and leave your brain at home.
The analogy isn’t perfect. Taxing earnings doesn’t exactly deter working since people need to work to survive, barring getting on welfare, whereas people do not need cigarettes to survive. But taxing earnings certainly does remove much of the incentive to work hard and to try to become upwardly mobile.
“Now keep working, slaves. We need that money.”
I did my taxes late last night. I owe the IRS $308.
I force my kids to pay a 10% tithe & a 10% tax on allowance & money earned. Daughter crying screamed “I hate taxes!!” #MissionAccomplished— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) February 10, 2013
Probably a fake letter, but it illustrates a beautiful point. It is the direct fault of those who supported Obama that this business is now hurting, so they should be the ones to suffer the consequences of their vote, not the innocent ones who voted AGAINST the policies that hurt businesses.
Hahaha, stupid Billy.
Thanks, Obama, for raising this lower-income lad’s taxes! Bravo, old chap, bravo indeed!
This is exactly what I said I would do if I owned a business. It is the way liberals vote that affect all of us by making all of us pay higher taxes, so, fine, if they want to vote that way, I’m going to nullify the negative effects of their vote on my business by charging them extra and not making my conservative customers pay for the consequences of the liberals’ votes.
People are much more responsible with their lives when they know there is no other choice. I remember, to give one personal example of this, that whenever my mother would go out of town for a week or so, I would suddenly start picking up after myself, giving the dog his medicine on time (and taking my own), loading and unloading the dishwasher, etc. But whenever my mother was around, I was always having to be reminded to do those things or else they would not get done.
Similarly, people are more charitable with their money (or their time, or whatever they are donating) when they know that other people have no choice but to rely on their charity.
There is a great constitutional argument to be made against the income tax, an argument I am not fully equipped to make at the moment, but let’s grant for argument’s sake that it is entirely constitutional. Even still, it is a matter of record that cutting taxes increases revenue for the government. Of course, without any taxes of any kind, there would be no revenue. But there is a level of taxation that, once passed, begins to have adverse effects, opposite of those professed to be desired.
When President George W. Bush cut taxes for all income brackets, the government brought in record revenues. That is a matter of cold, hard data. (The deficits came about by spending all that revenue and then some.)
As long as you don’t overspend the forthcoming tidal wave of revenue, cutting taxes for everybody helps everybody. And cutting taxes for the rich especially helps because they have more money to do with what they please, such as to donate to charities, which they do plenty of, more so when they have more spending money.
So in Obama’s neverending holy quest to raise taxes solely on the “wealthy” (families with an annual salary of $250,000 or more) as a means of enacting social justice, or “fairness,” he would ultimately hurt those people who rely on the charitable giving of the wealthy. The wealthy would not only have less disposable income, money that they can afford to give away, but they would also figure that the government, with their tax money, will be helping the needy. “I don’t need to donate,” the wealthy figure, “because the government will take care of them.”
The “fiscal cliff” showdown is now over with, but these things are always good to talk about. And despite my hand-wringing above, I still say we should have let the Democrats have their way. Instead, we compromised with them, so Republicans will be blamed when—not if, but when—things to badly. Such is life when you’re on the right side.
The low-information voter, i.e., the liberal.
No, I’m serious. Go.
As far as I’m concerned,...
Leftybegone is wicked smart.
[Posting this earlier than...
so i googled gangster goose and let me tell you that i was not disappointed