- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
LA's stupid sales tax system has been sued
Posted on 11/17/21 at 8:58 am
Posted on 11/17/21 at 8:58 am
After you anti-business idiots shot down amendment 1 on Saturday, a lawsuit was filed on Monday in federal court challenging the current system under the commerce clause.
LINK
Here's the actual lawsuit:
LINK
National Taxpayers Union, Pelican Institute, and the Goldwater Institute are supporting this lawsuit.
By the way... those are some of the more conservative organizations out there. MTU supports getting rid of national income taxes and replacing with a national consumption (sales) tax. Pelican is much the same, on a state level.
The organizations opposed to this amendment? Unions and government employees worried about losing "control" i.e. the ability to be corrupt.
Once again... the majority of posters on this website prove they are not real conservatives. Congrats. You played yourself.
BTW... I doubt this lawsuit has any merit to change anything. But it shows just how idiotic our current system ss.
LINK
Here's the actual lawsuit:
LINK
National Taxpayers Union, Pelican Institute, and the Goldwater Institute are supporting this lawsuit.
By the way... those are some of the more conservative organizations out there. MTU supports getting rid of national income taxes and replacing with a national consumption (sales) tax. Pelican is much the same, on a state level.
The organizations opposed to this amendment? Unions and government employees worried about losing "control" i.e. the ability to be corrupt.
Once again... the majority of posters on this website prove they are not real conservatives. Congrats. You played yourself.
BTW... I doubt this lawsuit has any merit to change anything. But it shows just how idiotic our current system ss.
This post was edited on 11/17/21 at 10:47 am
21
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:00 am to LSUFanHouston
I voted for #1.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:07 am to LSUFanHouston
It may have had more support if the proposed amendement would have just put it under the Dept of Revenue's jurisdiction instead of creating a brand new commission full of political appointees.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:08 am to LSUFanHouston
I voted no
Just seemed like a new state bureaucracy
Just seemed like a new state bureaucracy
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:09 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
the majority of posters on this website prove they are not real conservatives. Congrats. You played yourself.
On what planet is the demographic on this website the people responsible for #1 failing?
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:13 am to LSUFanHouston
This was a stupid arse amendment. The commission already exists. The state couldn't tell us how much they would charge each parish for their services. And do we really trust state gov't to be able to get the money to the parishes and audit the businesses that need auditing? The answer to that was to vote no and keep that gov't on a local level. Businesses can e-file. I mean it's not that difficult.
This is a lawsuit brought by the state imo. They 100% want that money
This is a lawsuit brought by the state imo. They 100% want that money
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:16 am to Cosmo
quote:
I voted no
Just seemed like a new state bureaucracy
You might want to learn about the amendments before you vote on them. Louisiana is the only state that businesses have to file a sales tax report in each parish (county) that you collect taxes, it can be a major pain. Other states toy only have to file one report to the state and they distribute the money to the counties.
In corrupt Louisiana the locals don't want anyone watching over their shoulder.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:18 am to andouille
quote:
In corrupt Louisiana the locals don't want anyone watching over their shoulder.
Or they don't trust the state not to steal the fricking money and completely frick this up. Which one do you think people were thinking about? I voted a solid NO
This post was edited on 11/17/21 at 9:19 am
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:19 am to LSUFanHouston
One of the reasons the Supreme Court ruled for the South Dakota in the Wayfair case is because there were minimum amounts involved in who would be subject to the state sales tax withholding rules. In the South Dakota law, a seller would have to have $100,000 in sales or 200 transactions in South Dakota to be subject to withholding for sales tax.
I don't know what Louisiana thresholds are, but I've read many commentators are saying that other states are amending their laws to come within those thresholds because the Supreme Court not only relied on those thresholds to rule for South Dakota but also seemingly "blessed" those thresholds.
Therefore, out-of-state sellers could just set up their system to not sell any more than those thresholds and not be subject to the withholding rules.
I don't know what Louisiana thresholds are, but I've read many commentators are saying that other states are amending their laws to come within those thresholds because the Supreme Court not only relied on those thresholds to rule for South Dakota but also seemingly "blessed" those thresholds.
Therefore, out-of-state sellers could just set up their system to not sell any more than those thresholds and not be subject to the withholding rules.
This post was edited on 11/17/21 at 9:44 am
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:22 am to Indefatigable
quote:
On what planet is the demographic on this website the people responsible for #1 failing?
There have been several threads on this topic where the vast majority of posters indicated they were voting no on this amendment.
Do a search.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:25 am to MMauler
quote:
Therefore, out-of-state sellers could just set up their system to not sell any more than those thresholds and not be subject to the withholding rules.
Take a look at the lawsuit if you get a chance.
Those same thresholds are in LA, the plaintiff currently limits sales to those thresholds to avoid having to file in multiple parishes, and the lawsuit is basically saying that because they have to limit themselves in order to avoid the insane filing requirements that is unconstitutional.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:26 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
It may have had more support if the proposed amendement would have just put it under the Dept of Revenue's jurisdiction instead of creating a brand new commission full of political appointees.
Exactly
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:26 am to Broke
quote:
Or they don't trust the state not to steal the fricking money and completely frick this up
Ironically, that's one of the reasons the new commission was set up... the locals wanted to make sure the state wasn't trying to pull a fast one. So the new commission is half local people and half state people.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:28 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
It may have had more support if the proposed amendement would have just put it under the Dept of Revenue's jurisdiction instead of creating a brand new commission full of political appointees.
The reason why this did not happen was because the locals still wanted some control, so the commission was set up and half the spots are appointed by locals and half by the state.
It was a compromise plan.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:35 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Take a look at the lawsuit if you get a chance.
Those same thresholds are in LA, the plaintiff currently limits sales to those thresholds to avoid having to file in multiple parishes, and the lawsuit is basically saying that because they have to limit themselves in order to avoid the insane filing requirements that is unconstitutional.
I tried earlier but it was a bad link.
The problem then is that the Supreme Court has already "blessed" the $100K/200 sales figures in South Dakota v. Wayfair. Many states have followed up on the heals of Wayfair to change their laws to mimic the South Dakota laws.
And, now that the Supremes have ruled, the lower courts are bound by Wayfair and it's EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that the Supremes will grant cert. after so little time to review something they JUST blessed.
This post was edited on 11/17/21 at 9:37 am
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:35 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
It may have had more support if the proposed amendement would have just put it under the Dept of Revenue's jurisdiction instead of creating a brand new commission full of political appointees.
This
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:35 am to Broke
quote:
do we really trust state gov't to be able to get the money to the parishes
This is the reason I voted no.
Power in America should start locally and funnel up. That way you have recourse against the upper branches.
The Louisiana State Government controlling all tax revenue is an unbelievably stupid idea. Especially in this state.
Not following JBE’s mask mandates? No more tax money for your parish.
Not hiring enough tranny contractors? No more tax money.
Blocking multifamily housing complexes in single
Family zoned neighborhoods? No more tax money.
Asinine.
We are hopelessly and pathetically trusting of government bureaucracy in this country
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:36 am to LSUFanHouston
LA state sales tax is such a complete and utter clusterfrick that I am fine with burning it down and starting over.
The rate itself is bad but not the huge problem. The problem is that there are a mass of exemptions of various types written into the law that are damn near impossible to measure because they aren’t directly marked on the return but put into the “other” column with a code number.
The way that is captured is a complete and total fricking mess that makes it hard to show impacts by changes or what is even out there.
The rate itself is bad but not the huge problem. The problem is that there are a mass of exemptions of various types written into the law that are damn near impossible to measure because they aren’t directly marked on the return but put into the “other” column with a code number.
The way that is captured is a complete and total fricking mess that makes it hard to show impacts by changes or what is even out there.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:56 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Ironically, that's one of the reasons the new commission was set up... the locals wanted to make sure the state wasn't trying to pull a fast one
Think about what you are saying. If the local gov't now has control of their own tax and own fate, why would they care about the state pulling a fast one. This wasn't a "local driven" commission. The state wants this. And then the state will take more until all the money funnels through the state. And we all know how that is going to turn out
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:57 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Once again... the majority of posters on this website prove they are not real conservatives. Congrats. You played yourself.
I read that and got ready to argue against it. To prep I went back and looked at the Amendment threads. I saw a lot of "I vote no to all amendments" posts or posts with other unreasonable restrictions like "only if it removes two other amendments" or "I don't want the money going to Baton Rouge" (like it's not going to BR anyway).
I realize now how right you are in this.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News