SQ 766 - Ban Taxation on Intangible Assets - Poll

[inactive]

So I sell a Big Mac for Thee bucks. I make a buck on each one, and the sandwich costs me 2 dollars to make. Of that 2 dollars, 10 cents is a tax on my lease of the names "McDonald's" and "Big Mac" I use to market my restaurant and sandwich. If this question passes, I can make the same dollar profit by charging $2.90, so I'ma knock a dime off the price for you. Because I love you fat people who eat my food.

^^^ Will never happen

 

[Lurker66]

Those two statements are incongruous. Will they or will they not be affected? It depends now that the state supreme court has weighed in. What does it depend on? County by county whim. That's not the proper way to tax intangible assets, particularly on businesses that aren't restricted to business within their respective county. It sets up a system where some counties will penalize all tyoes of businesses, where the next county over may not tax them at all in this manner. Yet it's not codified, but purely on the interpretations of a select few. Not good, go back to the drawing board and start over.

a YES vote only means the larger companies wont have to continue paying the tax, small business dont pay it now or in the past. Small business would neither lose or gain anything.

A NO vote means we accept the courts ruling that the tax should be equally applied. It can be enforced on large companies, maybe because it affects them more because theres fewer of them with more tangible stuff to tax. It would be harder or impossible to to enforce it with smaller business due to it beibg voluntarily reported. Thus it really doesnt affect them, even if it would it would be passed to consumers.

It seems like the bigger companies out manuvered our law makers and want the tax repealed or applied fairly at the expence of smaller business. In a sense, small business are getting used like pawns between law makers and large companies. Do we try and help the little guy and lose revenue or do we apply the tax fair and get it passed to the consumer?

Help the little guy or pay more? Let the big guys off or reduce revenue? Hmmm, either way, the citizen gets left holding the bag.

 

[EFsDad]

I'm gonna pay the money regardless, so do I want pad schools or business owners? I'm not very thrilled about either.

See that's the rub IMHO. Why have another layer of government and their markup on school funds. If we need school funds, then fund them and have one tax. Not 150 taxes that get some people/businesses and not others.

Hypothetical McDonald's Franchisee

Somebody owes me some money. I have the copyright on "Hypothetical McDonald's Franchisee" ©

 

[inactive]

See that's the rub IMHO. Why have another layer of government and their markup on school funds. If we need school funds, then fund them and have one tax. Not 150 taxes that get some people/businesses and not others.

They all get the consumer ultimately, but I get you point. Just collect the tax in one swoop, keep it transparent and honest (if that's possible), and call it good. Don't nickel and dime us over it. Don't hide or embed it. Just raise the state sales tax another .05% or something compensatory and throw that money towards schools.

 

[Glocktogo]

a YES vote only means the larger companies wont have to continue paying the tax, small business dont pay it now or in the past. Small business would neither lose or gain anything.

A NO vote means we accept the courts ruling that the tax should be equally applied. It can be enforced on large companies, maybe because it affects them more because theres fewer of them with more tangible stuff to tax. It would be harder or impossible to to enforce it with smaller business due to it beibg voluntarily reported. Thus it really doesnt affect them, even if it would it would be passed to consumers.

It seems like the bigger companies out manuvered our law makers and want the tax repealed or applied fairly at the expence of smaller business. In a sense, small business are getting used like pawns between law makers and large companies. Do we try and help the little guy and lose revenue or do we apply the tax fair and get it passed to the consumer?

Help the little guy or pay more? Let the big guys off or reduce revenue? Hmmm, either way, the citizen gets left holding the bag.

I think you're making two assumptions. First, that no county assessors will begin collecting the tax (involuntarily) on all businesses incorporated within their AOR and second, that business owners aren't citizens. "Citizens" don't have a free pass to reach into the pockets of others whenever and however they please, so why should government? The proper way to apply a tax is through legislation, not the courts.

 

[poopgiggle]

They all get the consumer ultimately, but I get you point. Just collect the tax in one swoop, keep it transparent and honest (if that's possible), and call it good. Don't nickel and dime us over it. Don't hide or embed it. Just raise the state sales tax another .05% or something compensatory and throw that money towards schools.

I would be more open to this if the sales tax in this state didn't apply to things like groceries.

 

[hard_r]

Yes, yes it was. When I hear of education budget shortfalls I just shake my head. Our schools are like prestigious country clubs these days. Can't afford books? Quit building extravagant, ridiculously overbuilt school buildings. They spend millions more than is necessary and wonder why they can't buy books and pencils. I took classes in portable metal buildings. The infrastructure has nothing to do with a quality education, it's all about the effort put into obtaining it. I have no sympathy for those that say they need more money, I've been hearing it for 40 years and seeing it happen the whole time, but the results haven't mirrored the expenditures.

/rant

More ignorance....There are laws that dictate how money must be spent, therefore it is possible to have money in the building fund but not have money for books. Also, a lot of additions and new buildings are paid for by bond issues (voted for by community members) and that money can not go to anything else. I love when people say "schools can afford x but then can't afford y". Schools don't just have one bank account they pay for everything out of. They have multiple funds which receive different amounts and each fund has laws about what the money can be spent on. Try to know what you're talking about before spouting your so-called solutions. If you use money allocated to construction on books, the school can be penalized, and superintendents can lose their jobs for breaking the law.

 

[poopgiggle]

I think you're making two assumptions. First, that no county assessors will begin collecting the tax (involuntarily) on all businesses incorporated within their AOR and second, that business owners aren't citizens. "Citizens" don't have a free pass to reach into the pockets of others whenever and however they please, so why should government? The proper way to apply a tax is through legislation, not the courts.

The courts are a pretty common way to get out of paying taxes, so I don't see why it shouldn't work the other way

 

[inactive]

I would be more open to this if the sales tax in this state didn't apply to things like groceries.

We tax our groceries damn near 9 percent but our new cars 3. Makes sense, right?!

 

[EFsDad]

More ignorance....There are laws that dictate how money must be spent, therefore it is possible to have money in the building fund but not have money for books. Also, a lot of additions and new buildings are paid for by bond issues (voted for by community members) and that money can noty pay for everything out of. They have multiple funds which receive different amounts and each fund has laws about what the money can b go to anything else. I love when people say "schools can afford x but then can't afford y". Schools don't just have one bank account thee spent on. Try to know what you're talking about before spouting your so-called solutions. If you use money allocated to construction on books, the school can be penalized, and superintendents can lose their jobs for breaking the law.

There are state laws that will not let school systems use their bonded money for anything but capital projects. So let's change that law instead of taxing something else. Get the people together and we can vote on it! And the multiple accounts to pay separate things are inefficient and bureaucracy at it's finest.