"Grover Norquist to Newsmax: States Would Abuse Internet Tax Law" http://www.newsmax.com/US/norquist-states-internet-taxes/2013/04/23/id/501035 âThat competition keeps states from being too abusive to citizens in their state. This law, if it were to pass ⦠would allow Alabama politicians to reach into New York and tax New York businesses. âDo you think thereâs any end to the abuse that politicians in one state will subject businesses in another state who by definition canât vote against them?ââ Just curious. Would this be the same as taxation without representation? Inquiring minds...
Cant happen, Obama promised to tax only the rich, the ones who don't pay their fair share. Sales tax is the most non-progressive tax
Untrue? you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Go ahead and point out all the times sloppy, centrally controlled government has out-competed private industry, in anything, ever.
Listening to Grover is like listening to a stuck record. I'm sure there are some intellectual arguments against the Internet sales tax law, Grover isn't qualified to give that arguement.
I knew he would be attacked. Sorry to see you were the first, though. Anyway, do you disagree with the last sentence of the post regarding taxing businesses in other states? This one: âDo you think thereâs any end to the abuse that politicians in one state will subject businesses in another state who by definition canât vote against them?ââ
Rural electric service to name one. All it takes is one example to disprove the fundamentalist absolute statement. The main service the government provides with regards to business is setting regulations for business to follow which helps protect consumer safety, worker safety, protect the environment and a fair playing field for other businesses. This is something only government can do well.
LOL, that has nothing to do with competition, AND it is inefficient. Why? because if providing electrical infrastructure/service to a rural household were profitable, then the privately owned electric companies WOULD in fact, provide it. Since they haven't then we can infer that the govt (all of us) provided the infrastructure at a loss. Anyway competition would be seeing if the govt could provide electricity with their own company in a way that is cheaper and with equal or better quality, without incurring a loss. And.. they can't. to your addition, no, apparently they can't do that well (regulate), either. But i agree, that there does need to be some regulation, and that the fed govt does have the authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Yes I'm guilty of thinking Grover as an opportunistic tool. States have the right to govern how they tax sales and they have the duty to protect the citizen business from unfair competition from out of state businesses. Grover as usual likes to sensationalize the discussion with a made up problem. What he said doesn't address even one point of the debate. And to finally answer the question, yes I think there is any end to the abuse politicians in one state will subject businesses in another state who by definition canât vote against them. It was an extreme and silly question by Grover.