3 ms·

Illinois did something similar with what it called the "Mainstreet Fairness Act" in March [1]. Illinois, as you may know, was rated as the worst state in the co

by hvs 15y ago

Illinois did something similar with what it called the "Mainstreet Fairness Act" in March [1]. Illinois, as you may know, was rated as the worst state in the country for debt last year [2]. These states would rather chase after more revenues (and chase companies out of their states in the process) rather than have to do the hard work of actually cutting spending. [1] http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-10/business/ct-biz-0311-amazon-tax-bill-20110310_1_amazon-and-overstock-main-street-fairness-act-sales-tax http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-10/business/ct-bi... [2] http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/44/debt-10_Global-Debt-Crisis_Rank_2.html http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/44/debt-10_Global-Debt-Cris...

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- cheez 15y ago
  Think about the children.
raganwald 15y ago
There are two orthogonal questions to ask: 1. How much should states tax their citizens? and: 2. Given a certain amount of tax to collect, what is/are the best mechanism(s)? You seem to be talking to point number one. Eliminating sales tax or collecting it from fewer transactions would accomplish that, but so would applying the law exactly as CT applies it but lowering the percentage collected on each transaction. For that reason, I find it confusing to look at a situation like this and slide into arguing about cutting spending. If they should tax people less, fine, but that's orthogonal to the question of how they tax people and the consequences of the tax mechanisms they choose to employ.
jwhite 15y ago
The phrase "Mainstreet Fairness Act" sounds like something directly out of Atlas Shrugged.
fleitz 15y ago
Why is cutting spending hard work? You just write a lower number on the budget, voila, less gets spent. I mean the only thing you really have to do to cut spending is for a Governor to refuse to sign the budget, spending gets cut automatically. In my opinion cutting spending is less work.

by hvs 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

cheez 15y ago
Think about the children.

raganwald 15y ago

There are two orthogonal questions to ask: 1. How much should states tax their citizens? and: 2. Given a certain amount of tax to collect, what is/are the best mechanism(s)? You seem to be talking to point number one. Eliminating sales tax or collecting it from fewer transactions would accomplish that, but so would applying the law exactly as CT applies it but lowering the percentage collected on each transaction. For that reason, I find it confusing to look at a situation like this and slide into arguing about cutting spending. If they should tax people less, fine, but that's orthogonal to the question of how they tax people and the consequences of the tax mechanisms they choose to employ.

jwhite 15y ago

The phrase "Mainstreet Fairness Act" sounds like something directly out of Atlas Shrugged.

fleitz 15y ago

Why is cutting spending hard work? You just write a lower number on the budget, voila, less gets spent. I mean the only thing you really have to do to cut spending is for a Governor to refuse to sign the budget, spending gets cut automatically. In my opinion cutting spending is less work.