What You May Have Missed
Most Popular
Across Site
In Opinion
- Facts about the Boy Scouts of America
- My view: MMR vaccine caused my son's autism
- Dan Liljenquist: IRS scandal is an assault on...
- In our opinion: Utah's caucus system needs...
- Michael Gerson: Common Core standards are not...
- Commentary claims liberals are shocked by...
- Letters: Dismantle IRS
- Letters: No welfare, ever
Most Commented
Across Site
In Opinion
- Letters: No welfare, ever
77 - Letters: Move to the center
37 - My view: Why moderates lost the caucus...
33 - Tolerance and the same-sex marriage debate
33 - Dan Liljenquist: IRS scandal is an...
32 - Richard Davis: Abortion laws should...
28 - Robert J. Samuelson: Can Americans stem...
21 - Letters: The buck stops here
21



Anything that Howard Stephenson is for, I will be against. He has a proven record of lobbying for and promoting things against the interest of most Utahns.
Doesn't this cut both ways? And what about the issue of interstate commerce? And isn't this just another way for the state to actually tax us more?
One of the biggest bribes that business uses with local governments is the promise of greater tax revenue from it’s operation. The source of the additional tax revenue is the tax collected from non-residents who come from outside the city, town or county because of the new attraction.
The effect of this system is dishonesty for government employees and businesses, and a made up competition between taxing authorities that doesn’t benefit any on except the businesses.
If the state want it’s own citizens to pay taxes on items from another local, why shouldn’t cities and towns do the same?
Or how about we do away with the unfair, unproductive, and every other “un” sales tax, and have the citizens of each local pay for their own government and only their own government.
@The Real Maverick
It's funny you should say that, because, although I almost always disagree with Howard Stephenson on general principle, I generally agree with this article, with the exception of the following:
"Those choosing to tax (within the new rules and protections) could do so only through an affirmative law passed by elected representatives of the legislature, not through a "creative interpretation" from an obscure administrator at a state tax agency."
This is typical Howard Stephenson 'I never met a tax I didn't want to fight' modus operendi, and I don't have a problem with the Tax Commissioners, or even an Executive Director, at the Utah State Tax Commission determining that Utah will be assessing sales tax on internet transactions, in accordance with the federal law.
I believe that addressing this at the federal level is an appropriate use of the Commerce Clause to eliminate the inconsistency and double-taxation that currently exists.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
— About comments