Not Pro-Business

Monday, June 25, 2018

In case anyone was wondering, the GOP in general and Donald Trump in particular do not deserve the reputation of being "pro-business." The following comes from a news report on the recent Supreme Court ruling to the effect that states can now force online retailers to collect sales taxes:

You might spot your recent purchase, but all most politicians see is loot. (Image via Pixabay.)
President Donald Trump told governors meeting at the White House Thursday that the ruling is "a big, big victory" for them and that it was a "good decision." The Trump administration backed South Dakota in the case, urging that the 1992 ruling be overturned or at least limited to catalog sales. [bold added]
Not only has South Dakota had Republican supermajorities in both houses of its legislature for over twenty years, many members of that party have been chomping at the bit to pass such a measure for a long time.

At that last link, I asked of Jeb Bush's support for an "efairness" internet sales tax -- which he deemed a "tax cut":
Increasing taxes in order to reduce taxes? What about reducing spending? That certainly didn't happen while Bush was governor. In 2006, for example, close to two-thirds of Florida's $62 billion and growing budget went into entitlements and programs that should be privatized. By comparison, "efairness" would raise a drop in the bucket. Was Bush too timid or too unimaginative to find a way to make even the modest cuts necessary to save that money?
There is nothing "fair" about the government forcibly taking money, and squandering the proceeds on things government shouldn't even be doing only compounds the injustice. The solution isn't to steal from everyone equally: It's to find a way to quit doing so altogether. And, yes, new taxes hurt business, because they violate individual rights, something I wish I could hear either party talk about -- at all.

-- CAV


John Shepard said...

I think that you will appreciate what Robert Tracinski has to say on this ruling, Gus:

"The Supreme Court Completes Its Inversion of the Commerce Clause"

Vigilis said...

"There is nothing "fair" about the government forcibly taking money, and squandering the proceeds on things government shouldn't even be doing only compounds the injustice." Sadly, it is now legal.

A challenge at SUPCO level would justly aim to limit any sales taxes imposed on out-of-state sellers (de minimus benefits from police, fire protection, etc.) to
the portion of such total governmental services allocable to usage of roadways by delivery services, which is ostensibly paid already by truckers in gasoline taxes.

In other words, such sales tax collections are worse than unfair, they are obviously duplicative. Duplicative income streams, like duplicative bureaucrats encourage government tolerance of more waste, fraud and abuse.

Gus Van Horn said...


Thanks for that link. ("Let me introduce you to the Sears catalogue...")


Not only do they "encourage government tolerance of more waste, fraud and abuse," they put that problem in perspective. Those things are bad, but they don't deserve the attention they get, and would largely not exist but for the existence of our massive entitlement/regulatory state.


Vigilis said...

Gus, with all due respoect I have become accustomed to your strict Ayn Randian interpretations of capitalism. I take issue with the customary marginalization of views of empirical merit apparently to cement the Rand doctrine. Occupational waste, fraud and abuse abound in public and private companies without the "massive entitlement/regulatory state".

Bureaucracies alone are all it takes to encourage mismanagement -- not just government bureaucracies. The Grace Commission Report presented to Congress in January 1984, claimed tha $424 billion could be saved in three years, rising to $1.9 trillion per year by the year 2000. It estimated that the national debt, without such reforms, would rise to $13 trillion by the year 2000 while with recommended reforms it would rise to only $2.5 trillion. Congress ignored the commission's report.

Gus Van Horn said...

I'm not saying those things aren't a problem. I'm saying that the entitlement state is a much worse problem.