From TaxGuru via Taxing Tennessee.
Cut out the middleman Middleman=IRS
April 15. Income tax returns were due, and taxpayers across the nation were coming together for TEA parties.
TEA=Taxed Enough Already!
Time will tell whether April 15, 2009, marks the start of a third political "party" made up of millions of taxpayers----the TEA Party.
Showing posts with label death and taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label death and taxes. Show all posts
Friday, April 17, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
April 11, 2009 Referendum on Sales Tax Increase in Hamblen County
The committee to increase the local sales tax in Hamblen County from 9.5% to 9.75% was formed on Monday.
If enough money has been raised or if the Tribune extends credit, the Win The Vote sales tax increase committee will probably have a big ad in the Tribune tomorrow asking Hamblen County voters to support the sales tax increase from 9.5% to 9.75%. Letters or postcards may follow. Then students, school employees, or parents passing out literature at work, sending e-mails, and going door-to-door.
We may see an original editorial--unlike the typical Tribune editorial that has been copied from some other paper. There will probably be an onslaught of letters to the editor and the proverbial Tribune "series" of articles on schools and the sales tax--all with the Tribune's and School Board's classic pro-tax stance.
You can blame this third push for a sales tax increase directly on the City of Morristown. In the first (countywide) sales tax referendum in February 2008, the City tried to get city votes by promising a city property tax decrease. The city and county both noted that part of the money would go to education--- "for the children." David Purkey and Stancil Ford prepared and signed letters on county stationery that were sent out to county voters. That referendum failed.
Despite the setback, the City was determined to get a sales tax increase approved despite the initial setback. So the City held a second referendum--just for city voters--again promising city voters that the City's 2007 historic 40% property tax increase would be rolled back to a 25% increase if the sales tax referendum was approved. Letters were sent out by Mayor Barile and the council saying in no uncertain terms vote "Yes." Sort of like the county's "pick-your poison" wheel tax referendum in 2002. The citywide referendum passed.
City voters reduced one poison (property tax) by voting for an increase in another poison (sales tax). Then the City--which had joined in expressing passionate concern for education in the first referendum--decided to keep ALL of the sales tax instead of voluntarily contributing part of its sales tax increase to "the children."
In this third sales tax referendum, the county is pushing to make the city's sales tax increase countywide---just as it would have been had the first countywide referendum passed. The county is NOT offering any roll back in property taxes to county voters.
The city and county have orchestrated a two-prong approach to force/extort/blackmail voters into finally approving, in effect, a countywide sales tax increase. The City went first and offered a property tax reduction to finally get the sales tax increase passed in the city. The County is going second and, if the tax passes, city, county, and school officials will have gotten what each wanted all along--more tax money.
With the never-ending push for more money, where is the plan describing exactly how additional money will be spent, what improved educational outcomes will be realized, how much test scores will rise, how student literacy will be improved, or how much graduation rates will go up?
From the Win the Vote committee: This is about "the children." The answer to all school woes is money, more money, and still more money.
From the taxpayers: We love the children. The answer to all school woes is NOT money. And can you tell us how much taxpayer money will be enough? Just a ballpark figure will be OK. 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%?
If enough money has been raised or if the Tribune extends credit, the Win The Vote sales tax increase committee will probably have a big ad in the Tribune tomorrow asking Hamblen County voters to support the sales tax increase from 9.5% to 9.75%. Letters or postcards may follow. Then students, school employees, or parents passing out literature at work, sending e-mails, and going door-to-door.
We may see an original editorial--unlike the typical Tribune editorial that has been copied from some other paper. There will probably be an onslaught of letters to the editor and the proverbial Tribune "series" of articles on schools and the sales tax--all with the Tribune's and School Board's classic pro-tax stance.
You can blame this third push for a sales tax increase directly on the City of Morristown. In the first (countywide) sales tax referendum in February 2008, the City tried to get city votes by promising a city property tax decrease. The city and county both noted that part of the money would go to education--- "for the children." David Purkey and Stancil Ford prepared and signed letters on county stationery that were sent out to county voters. That referendum failed.
Despite the setback, the City was determined to get a sales tax increase approved despite the initial setback. So the City held a second referendum--just for city voters--again promising city voters that the City's 2007 historic 40% property tax increase would be rolled back to a 25% increase if the sales tax referendum was approved. Letters were sent out by Mayor Barile and the council saying in no uncertain terms vote "Yes." Sort of like the county's "pick-your poison" wheel tax referendum in 2002. The citywide referendum passed.
City voters reduced one poison (property tax) by voting for an increase in another poison (sales tax). Then the City--which had joined in expressing passionate concern for education in the first referendum--decided to keep ALL of the sales tax instead of voluntarily contributing part of its sales tax increase to "the children."
In this third sales tax referendum, the county is pushing to make the city's sales tax increase countywide---just as it would have been had the first countywide referendum passed. The county is NOT offering any roll back in property taxes to county voters.
The city and county have orchestrated a two-prong approach to force/extort/blackmail voters into finally approving, in effect, a countywide sales tax increase. The City went first and offered a property tax reduction to finally get the sales tax increase passed in the city. The County is going second and, if the tax passes, city, county, and school officials will have gotten what each wanted all along--more tax money.
With the never-ending push for more money, where is the plan describing exactly how additional money will be spent, what improved educational outcomes will be realized, how much test scores will rise, how student literacy will be improved, or how much graduation rates will go up?
From the Win the Vote committee: This is about "the children." The answer to all school woes is money, more money, and still more money.
From the taxpayers: We love the children. The answer to all school woes is NOT money. And can you tell us how much taxpayer money will be enough? Just a ballpark figure will be OK. 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%?
Saturday, January 03, 2009
January 3, 2009 Additional Gasoline Taxes "By the Mile"
Do you drive or have you thought about purchasing a car that gets good gas mileage for economic reasons? Do you drive or have you thought about purchasing a hybrid vehicle for gas mileage and environmental reasons?
How would you like to pay a "mileage" tax that would take away your gas and gas tax savings?
Oregon has placed GPS monitors on 300 vehicles in a pilot program to track the mileage and let the owner pay a "mileage" tax at the gas pumps. Congress is looking at "mileage" taxes, too, in addition to gas tax increases being discussed by the incoming administration as part of a $1 TRILLION DOLLAR stimulus package!
Why the mileage tax?
Click here for the full Memphis Commercial Appeal (AP) story.
Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring ways to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of how much gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring devices in 300 vehicles.
The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as Oregon lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric hybrids could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely with gasoline taxes.
For years, the federal government demanded that automakers build cars that got more miles per gallon. The government wanted consumers to use fuel-efficient cars and even offered tax rebates to purchasers of gas/electric hybrids. Now that many consumers--for environmental or economic reasons or both--have opted for the better mileage vehicles, the state and federal governments are looking at a "mileage" tax to replace and/or supplement the current per gallon tax.
And for those concerned about privacy issues, the Oregon task force has "assured people that the program does not track detailed movement and that driving history is not stored and cannot be accessed by law enforcement agencies." Does anyone want to take a bet that the information is not stored and can not be accessed by law enforcement or possibly others?
Ben Franklin said: In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.
Hey Ben, here's another (almost) certainty. Death by taxation!
How would you like to pay a "mileage" tax that would take away your gas and gas tax savings?
Oregon has placed GPS monitors on 300 vehicles in a pilot program to track the mileage and let the owner pay a "mileage" tax at the gas pumps. Congress is looking at "mileage" taxes, too, in addition to gas tax increases being discussed by the incoming administration as part of a $1 TRILLION DOLLAR stimulus package!
Why the mileage tax?
Click here for the full Memphis Commercial Appeal (AP) story.
Oregon is among a growing number of states exploring ways to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of how much gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring devices in 300 vehicles.
The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as Oregon lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric hybrids could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely with gasoline taxes.
For years, the federal government demanded that automakers build cars that got more miles per gallon. The government wanted consumers to use fuel-efficient cars and even offered tax rebates to purchasers of gas/electric hybrids. Now that many consumers--for environmental or economic reasons or both--have opted for the better mileage vehicles, the state and federal governments are looking at a "mileage" tax to replace and/or supplement the current per gallon tax.
And for those concerned about privacy issues, the Oregon task force has "assured people that the program does not track detailed movement and that driving history is not stored and cannot be accessed by law enforcement agencies." Does anyone want to take a bet that the information is not stored and can not be accessed by law enforcement or possibly others?
Ben Franklin said: In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.
Hey Ben, here's another (almost) certainty. Death by taxation!
Monday, January 14, 2008
January 13, 2008 Death and Taxes
In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes. Thank you, Ben Franklin.
In Tennessee, there's a little twist on Ben's quote. As of January 1, 2008, there was an increase in the tax on death as the sales tax for caskets went up.
Lots of other increases will be coming the taxpayer's way--especially with Tennessee's Revenue Commissioner Reagan Farr's plan to increase tax collections by closing tax "loopholes."
Ben Cunningham is always on top of the tax games that politicians play. Check this video about the definition of a tax loophole. Is it really a loophole? Well, it all depends on which side of the loophole you are on.
For the revenue collector, a loophole is bad and reduces revenue collections. For the taxpayer, a loophole is good and is a welcome breath of freedom from otherwise oppressive government.
NOTE: In case you have forgotten, Reagan Farr is Tennessee's illustrious leader who sent revenue agents across the border with other states so he could try to catch border-jumping Tennesseans who were buying cheaper, lower-taxed cigarettes in other states instead of doing their civic duty and paying higher cigarette taxes "for the children."
After confiscating 31,000 cartons, Mr. Farr recently declared victory and decided to wind down his cigarette surveillance efforts! Now he's turning to loophole closing. Watch your wallet!
In Tennessee, there's a little twist on Ben's quote. As of January 1, 2008, there was an increase in the tax on death as the sales tax for caskets went up.
Lots of other increases will be coming the taxpayer's way--especially with Tennessee's Revenue Commissioner Reagan Farr's plan to increase tax collections by closing tax "loopholes."
Ben Cunningham is always on top of the tax games that politicians play. Check this video about the definition of a tax loophole. Is it really a loophole? Well, it all depends on which side of the loophole you are on.
For the revenue collector, a loophole is bad and reduces revenue collections. For the taxpayer, a loophole is good and is a welcome breath of freedom from otherwise oppressive government.
NOTE: In case you have forgotten, Reagan Farr is Tennessee's illustrious leader who sent revenue agents across the border with other states so he could try to catch border-jumping Tennesseans who were buying cheaper, lower-taxed cigarettes in other states instead of doing their civic duty and paying higher cigarette taxes "for the children."
After confiscating 31,000 cartons, Mr. Farr recently declared victory and decided to wind down his cigarette surveillance efforts! Now he's turning to loophole closing. Watch your wallet!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)