Tax, Tax ,Tax

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7158254/

Florida mulls toilet paper tax

Proposal would pay for wastewater treatmentThe Associated Press

Updated: 10:33 a.m. ET March 11, 2005TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - The Florida Legislature is flush with good ideas.

Sen. Al Lawson’s latest involves a way to pay for wastewater treatment and help small towns and counties upgrade their sewer systems.

The Democrat from Tallahassee is proposing a 2-cent-per-roll tax on toilet paper.

“We’ve got 17 million people in this state and all of them can contribute to protecting our underground water supply,” he said.

In a Republican-dominated Legislature that doesn’t like new taxes, the idea could end up in the tank pretty quickly.

Senate President Tom Lee said he didn’t think it would get too far, but didn’t rule it out. “We’ll be getting to the bottom of it real soon,” he said.

Lawson’s been enduring plenty of jokes — bathroom humor, you might say — but he says it’s a serious issue.

Even if the proposal passes the Legislature, it would need approval from Gov. Jeb Bush. The president’s brother said if toilet paper is taxed, people might use less of it.

“That’s not necessarily a good thing,” he said.

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7159177/

The tax man cometh — online

Wisconsin governor proposes sales tax on Internet purchasesBy Arik Hesseldahl

Updated: 12:40 p.m. ET March 12, 2005The forces of Internet taxation are beginning to muster themselves once again in the statehouses of America. Right now ground zero in the fight is in Madison, Wis.

That's where Gov. James Doyle, a Democrat, thinks he's solved his state's budgetary shortfall in part by levying a tax on the goods Wisconsin residents purchase over the Internet.

Under his proposal Wisconsin residents would be required to pay the state's 5 percent sales tax on anything they buy over the Internet, which would include books and CDs from Amazon.com or songs on Apple Computer's iTunes Music Store. The estimated return to the state's coffers? A measly $3.2 million over two years.

That seems hardly worth the effort to add the extra cost that businesses will have to eat in order to come into compliance with the law. And if Doyle gets his way, other states may seek to follow his example and start a new offensive in their long fight over "tax equity" between Internet and brick-and-mortar businesses.

Technically speaking, when you buy something on the Internet, you owe the same amount of money in sales and use taxes to your state and local government as you would if you had bought them on Main Street. The complication — and cost — comes in keeping track of those taxes. States have no real means to do it, and so they leave it to the businesses, most of which ignore it if they can.

If you're buying something online from a company with a physical presence in your state, you will likely pay sales tax. But some vendors get around this by creating separate subsidiaries. You can thank a 1992 Supreme Court decision, Quill vs. North Dakota, for that.

Accounting nightmare

The federal government has so far prevented states and cities — Wisconsin being an exception — from imposing new taxes on Internet sales. This prevented state and local authorities from collecting some $8 billion in taxes in 2003 and could prevent them from collecting $12 billion to $18 billion by 2008, according to economists at the University of Tennessee, who wrote an oft-cited study on the matter. That's the kind of money that gives tax collectors a funny twitch.

But imagine the accounting nightmare — not to mention the cost — of having to keep track of the tax rates of some of some 7,500 tax-collecting jurisdictions.

That's exactly what the multi-state "Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement" is supposed to address. Forty-two states are involved in the efforts to set uniform standards on how Internet and catalog transactions can be taxed. Once the rules are simplified, the thinking goes, states and cities will be better able to convince Congress to lift the ban on new Internet sales taxes and thus tap into a new revenue stream.

But is it really that simple? Apparently not. Another University of Tennessee study looked at the potential revenue impact of the "streamlined" rules on all of that state's 95 counties and 382 cities.

CONTINUED: Mixed bag of results

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 | 2 | Next >

[Auburn85 432]

the current fee for 911 service on cell phones is $.70.

The Alabama Legislature wants to raise it to $1.00

[LegalEagle 22]

As long as we allow government to spend, spend, spend, they will tax, tax, tax.

[Auburn85 432]

Arnold, the governor of California, is proposing a junk food tax

How about a tax(fine) on the people who shelter illegal immigrants, or hire them.

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146772,00.html

Will Paying Higher Taxes Make You Happier?

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Watch "Hannity & Colmes" weeknights at 9 p.m. ET!

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Money can’t always buy us happiness, but is it possible that higher taxes can buy you happiness?

Well, our next guest seems to think so. Joining us now is the author of the book, "Happiness: Lessons from a New Science" (search). Professor Richard Layard is with us.

How are you?

PROFESSOR RICHARD LAYARD, AUTHOR, "HAPPINESS": I’m fine. Let me explain what I’m saying.

HANNITY: All right.

LAYARD: I’m starting from the fact that over the last 50 years people haven’t gotten happier, although they’ve had a hell of a lot more money to take home.

And I’m explaining that by the fact that they’re comparing their incomes with other people’s incomes. So everybody is engaged in the scramble to try and raise their income compared with other people, and that is not possible for everybody to do.

HANNITY: It’s predicated on a belief — there’s so many other factors to happiness. Your spiritual life.

LAYARD: Of course.

HANNITY: Your cultural life, your family life.

LAYARD: I’m just talking about the financial side.

HANNITY: Financial happiness.

LAYARD: Which we were also talking about. So they’re comparing to it other people. They’re engaged in a rat race in which they’re all trying to clamber up above each other which is not possible for everybody as a whole.

So why don’t we stop putting quite that effort into that rat race, which involves less time with our family, with our children, with our friends and all this?

HANNITY: And give the money to the government?

LAYARD: And have some sort of a damper on the rat race. Now, then, of course, the money comes back to us again. The money comes back to us again. Of course, nobody wants to pay taxes, that doesn’t make anybody happy, unless the money is then coming back in some other form.

HANNITY: You know what’s missing? We don’t need you to figure this out for us. With all due respect, you know what I believe in? Freedom. Let — let people decide.

I believe that if I work really hard, that if I want to keep my money, fine. If I want to give it to Al’s liberal friends, fine. If you want to give it to the government, fine. Let people decide.

The freedom makes us happy or at least gives us the chance to become happy. Why do we need people to figure all of this stuff out for us?

LAYARD: What other people do affects us. And I can tell you five really good studies by the U.S. in which you can — you find out that, if somebody else works harder and earns more, it makes other people feel worse off.

HANNITY: Too bad. Get over it.

LAYARD: And the same is working — the same is working in the opposite direction. So why not have a kind of arms race?

HANNITY: To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability. We can give everybody the same amount of money.

LAYARD: Let me answer. You’re saying, everybody should do their own thing and there’s no gains from people cooperating to their mutual advantage. This is a form of cooperation.

HANNITY: It’s called communism, socialism.

LAYARD: Facilitated by the — it’s not communism.

HANNITY: If I have — let’s say I have millions of dollars. How much do you want, a percentage? Because I just got a check just today, as a matter of fact, for over 40 percent of the money I got was taken out and that will go to the government. It’s not mine anymore. That’s what I pay in taxes. I don’t even see it anymore.

At what point is enough, enough, in terms of government taking people’s hard-earned money? Because I would argue that your system would — would decrease the incentive people have. I think if I want to work 90 hours a week that’s my choice, and I should have the benefits of that hard work.

LAYARD: That’s precisely the point. I want to ask you a question, if I may.

HANNITY: You go be the host, and I’ll be the guest.

LAYARD: You would probably agree that if we cut taxes people would work harder. They’d spend less time with their families, their children and their friends. Do you think that’s a good thing?

HANNITY: Well, first I don’t necessarily believe it.

LAYARD: You just used the word "incentive."

HANNITY: I believe in the freedom. Let people decide how to live their lives and government get out of the way. I believe in the principles of limited government and greater freedom.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Professor, is it your contention, just lay it out, the more you pay in taxes, the happier you are?

LAYARD: I’m saying in a country, which has reasonably high taxes (search), there would tend to be less of a rat race.

COLMES: So if I pay more taxes?

LAYARD: You can see it if you look around the place in Scandinavia (search) or even in other — some European countries. There is less of a rat race and where there is a lower tax rate.

COLMES: But am I going to be happy if I pay more taxes?

HANNITY: Take his money.

LAYARD: Sorry, you’re not being serious actually.

COLMES: I want to understand.

LAYARD: If you pay more taxes and you get nothing back in return, of course you’re unhappy.

COLMES: But you’re saying if we pay the money and we get better roads and better schools?

LAYARD: Exactly.

COLMES: You’re saying that makes us happy?

LAYARD: Thank you. You made my point.

COLMES: But are — you also say the total sum of happiness among the greatest number of people is what you strive for. Does mean if you have wealth distribution, that we’re happier as a nation, where there is a greater wealth distribution?

LAYARD: What do you mean by greater wealth distribution?

COLMES: Socialism? Is a happier society than a capitalist society (search)?

LAYARD: No. One of the basic findings, and we’re trying to talk about evidence, about what makes people happy.

COLMES: Right.

LAYARD: One of the clearest pieces of evidence is that communists made people more miserable than almost any other system. So we’re talking about something in between.

COLMES: But then communism makes you more miserable?

LAYARD: And communism at the opposite extreme.

COLMES: Doesn’t that go against your thesis?

LAYARD: The question is where to strike the balance. The happiest countries in the world, according to the surveys, are the Scandinavian countries.

HANNITY: They take 70 percent of your income. Seventy percent.

LAYARD: Fairly high. Fairly high. They take it but they give it back.

HANNITY: I don’t want it back. I want my own money.

COLMES: Is capitalism less moral than socialism?

LAYARD: Well, I don’t think it’s fruitful to trade these words. We’re talking about where is the problem in balance.

HANNITY: I’ve got to run. But you and Alan can pay any percentage you want. Just leave my money alone.

COLMES: But they make all the money, those guys on that side.

HANNITY: Because we work harder.

COLMES: Yes, we work harder.

HANNITY: I’ve run out of time — we have to — I’ll have you back.

LAYARD: I think that if a person judges their own life and whether they’re successful, they shouldn’t judge it by that. No matter how much...

HANNITY: I agree. I’m a happy person but I’d like more of my money back. Good to see you.