Specifically,
a moment when – during some down time in class – she told us about a
refrigerator she had just bought that past weekend some three decades ago.
THIS
TEACHER LIVED in Indiana, but commuted to her job teaching at a high school
based in suburban Cook County.
She
specifically bought the refrigerator from a department store on the Illinois
side of State Line Road, but then arranged to have it shipped to her
Indiana-based home.
As
a result, she got out of having to pay any sales tax on the purchase. The way
she went on about this, it was clear she often did this to save herself the few
bucks that otherwise would have gone toward the tax payment.
I’m
not about to describe this teacher as being a “cheapskate.” But let’s be
honest; this was a dodge to save some money. There’s no real high-minded, moral
principle involved here.
WHICH
IS SIMILAR to what I have to say about those people who think it is an affront
to all that is decent about society that anybody thinks they could pay a sales
tax of sorts for whenever they make an Amazon purchase.
Although
for what it’s worth, the degree to which they try to moralize about this issue
disgusts me to the point where I will use the word “cheapskate” to describe
them.
Which
is why I was concerned when the Supreme Court of Illinois last week issued a ruling
that struck down the attempt by our General Assembly to have a state Internet
sales tax.
As
in you’d have to pay something to Illinois if you live here and bought
something – regardless of where the physical entity that ultimately provides
the object (Amazon itself isn’t a store or a manufacturer or much of anything).
THESE
CHEAPSKATES ARE going to try interpreting the state high court’s ruling as some
sort of justification for their tightwad ways!
Of
course, anybody who actually reads the ruling will see that the state court’s
ruling was based on the fact that Congress in recent years passed its own
measure that prevents the implementation of state or federal taxes on Internet-based
retailers.
It
seems the cheapskates have their own supporters in Congress who passed the
measure – which is NOT a permanent change in federal law. For it seems the
measure is scheduled to expire next year.
It
also means that federal law overrides local and state measures (a fact that
ticks off the conservative ideologues to no end). Which is why the state Amazon
tax is dead. For now!
THERE
ARE THOSE who already are speculating that this means once the federal measure
expires, the state Amazon tax can take effect again.
Unless
our Congress gets into a partisan spat over whether to not to extend their
prohibition on taxes so people can continue to order music, video and books on
the cheap – although personally, I’ve never seen that much difference in price
on the few occasions when I have used Amazon to buy something.
Maybe
I’m just buying the wrong items (not exactly the kinds of things that would
sell in such mass quantity that Amazon could afford to make them available at a
significant discount AND still make itself a profit).
Enough
of one, it seems, that its owner, Jeff Bezos, could afford to buy the
Washington Post – even if no one has really made it clear what he intends to do
with all the assets that come from having an extensive newsgathering team in
the nation’s capital.
I’M
ACTUALLY INTERESTED in seeing just what stances the Post takes on this issue in
the future – although the idea of a publisher using his newspaper to tout his
other business interests is such an old-fashioned concept that we certainly
shouldn’t be surprised.
But
if they start spewing rhetoric about a person’s right not to be overtaxed when
they make such purchases?
Let’s
not forget that it all comes down to a defense of the cheapskate. Nothing more!
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment