resurrectionsong

October 29, 2003

No Loss (StumpJumper)

I have to admit to being a fence-sitter on the Internet Tax ban. For those of you unaware, several years ago Congress passed a time-limited moratorium on taxing Internet access. This moratorium expires this week and a bill to make the ban permanent is stalled in the Senate. The Republican in me hates taxation but the Federalist in me sees the moratorium as an encroachment on State's rights. Although a discussion about the moratorium, and Internet taxation in general, would be interesting an important, this isn't what this post is about. This post is about the attitude that many in this country have regarding taxation.

In the October 27, 2003 issue of the dead-tree version of eWeek there is an article titled "Net tax movement still alive" by Caron Carlson. When discussing the potential tax revenue he states that "The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a permanent access ban would cost states between $80 million and $120 million a year." I take offense at this language. Let me make my point loud and clear for those who just don't get it:

There is no loss of dollars when a tax is not enacted: that money belongs to us! The only loss that occurs is the one that we experience when the tax is enacted!

We need to start reminding people that we do not owe the government any of our money. This is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." When we say that the government "loses" money by not taxing what we are really saying is that the government is taking less of our money. All that we are denying the government is potential tax revenue. We are not taking something that is rightfully theirs, we are simply not giving them something that is rightfully ours.

Sometimes semantics are important. In an age when the average wage earner loses 35%-45% of their hard-earned income to income tax and then has to pay various other taxes and government fees out of whatever is left, we need to correct the misconceptions that are created by poor semantics. Regardless of how you feel about the Internet tax ban we must all recognize that the government isn't "losing" anything because of it. It is simply creating one less way of the government to take our money.

Posted by stumpjumper at October 29, 2003 08:04 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Thing is, it's not "poor semantics". The people who say these things know exactly what they're saying. It's the same kind of doublespeak that gives us "Gun Saftey" for Gun Control, "Public School" for government school, etc.
They're more than happy to have us think it's a "loss" when a tax is not enacted. Indeed, most of them probably do think it is.

Posted by: Matt Navarre at October 29, 2003 09:26 AM

I agree with you 100%, Matt, that the choice of the word "loss" is intentional. When I used the term "poor semantics" I was not trying to imply that the choice was accidental. I am sorry that I was not clear on this point. Your examples are excellent illustrations of this point. If we were to compile a comprehensive list we would have to include "undocumented immigrant" for "illegal alien" and "pro-choice" for "pro-abortion." I'm sure that there are others that we could add.

There is definitely a war of language (in addition to a war of ideas) being waged in this country. Some days, I think that we (the voting masses) are losing it.

Posted by: StumpJumper at October 29, 2003 09:50 AM

I go through this repeatedly with people who say that tax cuts are actually spending.

Posted by: mtpolitics at October 29, 2003 01:17 PM

I'm not a fence sitter on this one at all...just say no.

If I have time I'll post on this later. Back to work now.

Posted by: Steve at October 29, 2003 02:10 PM

Steve, is this "no" to Internet taxation or "no" to the ban? I'm looking forward to reading your post on this.

Posted by: StumpJumper at October 29, 2003 02:20 PM

Agreed. But the tax ban should remain. Interstate commerce should be taxed by the fed and the fed alone, not the states. That's pretty clearly spelled out in the constitution. There'll be a constitutional battle over this if the ban isn't renewed.

Posted by: sama at October 29, 2003 05:10 PM

There has long been the same deal with mail order sales. In the twenties there was a court ruling that stood as definitive at least for a long time, IIRC, which repudiated the right of a state in which the selling company is based to collect sales tax on a sale made to someone outside that state. Arguing about this for the internet is like arguing that mail order sold by home shopping TV shows can be taxed in the ship-to by the ship-from state, but mail order sold by catalogs mailed to home cannot be taxed that way. The only possible change is ease of determining who is where on some sales. The interstate commerce bit applies.

Periodically, states will still go after out of state companies to get taxes on sales to customers in states where the company has no business presence. These are bogus, but I am not sure if they still lose when they go to court, or if any do. Ithink a lot of mail order companies will collect tax all over just to avoid the hassle of legal defense.

Anyway, excellent post. You gotta love the sematics and how they get used and take in the gullible so easily.

Posted by: Jay Solo at October 29, 2003 10:34 PM

Steve, is this "no" to Internet taxation or "no" to the ban?

No to Internet taxation. And, yes, I will get around to posting something a little lengthier, real soon now....

Posted by: Steve at October 31, 2003 12:05 AM