I recently sent an email to a local Tea Party "leader" to question his opposition to the temporary five year Amazon sales tax exemption. I am posting his reply and my followup. I have not secured his permission to post his letter, so I believe it best to allow him to remain anonymous.
Dear Mr. Martin,
Thank you for writing and expressing your concerns over my position on the
Amazon.com tax safe harbor.
I assure you no is paying me. I am not pro-tax, but I do support everyone
working under the same set of rules. How is it just for Amazon to get a
"safe harbor" exemption from collecting sales tax, which is an effective 7%
price advantage, just because they can afford to hire lobbyist to go and
negotiate the preferential treatment from the legislature.
Don't we live in
a country that was founded on equal treatment under the law?
It is suggested that the 1249 jobs is worth it. I don't think we should
gloss over injustice based on supposed benefits. That is situational
morality. I don't think we, as conservatives, should justify situational
morality. Right is right. Wrong is wrong.
Standing on principle is what
separates us from the liberals.
I hope Amazon comes to Lexington... I have lived in Lexington nearly my
whole life. But I can't sacrifice principle for benefit. If so, how would
I be any different from those who ask for more government control and
regulation for the supposed benefit it would bring.
Some say, as you allude to, that regardless of where Amazon locates, they
still won't by collecting SC sales tax. That may be true, but if they
locate in South Carolina and make use of our infrastructure, police, fire
department, trash facilities, etc. and not be required to suffer under the
same price disadvantage that every other retailer is required to... that of
the extra 7% increase in price due to sales tax they collect.
How is that
fair or just?
I agree that taxes need to go away. But they need to go away for everyone
equally. Not just for the well connected.
Thanks for writing with your concerns and allowing me to respond!
Best regards,
My Reply:
Dear Mr. xxxxxxxxxxxx,
I want to thank you for taking the time to answer my email. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue with me.
Like most conservatives, I am dubious about any policy position based solely on “fairness”, especially when they are applied to taxation. I will, for the sake of our debate, ignore the fact that nothing about taxation is "fair", “just” or “moral”. At its core, taxation amounts to forced confiscation of one’s private property by the state, generally with the purpose of giving it to someone else. A necessary evil, some taxation is needed, but equating the Amazon bill to some concept of “equal justice” is as flawed as justifying a progressive income tax simply by opining that the wealth earned by individuals making more than 250,000 is less important to them and therefore, taking more from them is the “fair” thing to do.
Conservative political policies are generally based on logic and reason. We learn lessons from the past and apply that knowledge to our political positions in order to “conserve” liberty and freedom. To say “because it is not right”, “because it isn’t fair” or “because it is the right thing to do” are not arguments based on logic or reason. This is the folly of the liberal. They do what they “feel” is right. Healthcare Reform is a prime example. In doing what they “felt was right”, they ignored the will of the people, increased healthcare costs on all of us and ignored the logical and reasonable arguments against such legislation. Now, as we have seen, those arguments against such legislation are being proven with each passing day. Logic tells us that if this legislation were sound, the Obama administration would not need to issue over one thousand waivers to prevent workers from losing their coverage. The “moral” argument from the left is that 5% of the population now has healthcare insurance (or will have it) who did not have it before and therefore, the cost increase to the rest of us is “justified”.
Without applying this arbitrary notion that the Amazon sales tax exemption bill is not “fair” or “moral”, how do you justify your opposition to it?
Perhaps you feel the state legislature is “picking winners and losers”? Isn’t that what economic incentives are all about? Should we give up our right-to-work status so that we will not be “picking winners or losers” on a national scale? Does your measure of "morality" and "fairness" stop at our state borders? I’m fairly certain that the "fairness" debate would not go our way if the people of Washington State were the arbiters of “fairness” when it comes to that particular incentive to locate businesses to our state. I’m sure the unions in Washington State would agree with your declaration: “I do support everyone working under the same set of rules.”
I concur that standing on principle is what separates us from the liberals. I just have not seen which principle it is that would dictate we oppose the Amazon legislation. In fact, my understanding of conservative principles tells me that corporations are much more than just income sources for the state. They are not evil, soulless behemoths who just want to crush the “little people” in order to make a profit. This is another unreasonable, illogical position taken by the left. Corporations are simply groups of individuals: executives, shareholders and employees working for mutual benefit of the entire company. They enhance and enrich our communities… they do not rob them and crush them under their boots as liberals would have us believe. To reduce them to faceless, nameless entities less deserving of liberty than the average citizen is to prescribe to the propaganda of the left.
As to your opposition to the influence peddling of our legislators, I agree whole-heartadly. However, it is not Amazon who has spent the vast majority of money on this particular legislation. It is “The Alliance for Main Street Fairness”. Wal-Mart, Best Buy and Target have dumped millions into this special interest group to shrink Amazon's market share and to influence legislation not just in our state, but across the country, despite the misleading and dishonest name they have chosen for themselves. It is this influence peddling that benefits no one but themselves. They do not care about the unemployed people in our state or the poor economic conditions in the area which Amazon wants to build. Turning a blind eye to these lobbyists while condemning Amazon for lobbying is an odd position to take when the very basis of your position is “fairness”.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to debate this issue and I hope you will reconsider the position you have taken. As conservatives, we may disagree, but we are willing to discuss and debate rather than demonize and dehumanize those who oppose our positions. Treating Amazon as a soulless, bottom feeding source of tax revenue for the state rather than an employer and boon to our community wobbles towards that favored tactic of the left. A tactic I would rather not see associated with the Tea Party, especially when it used against the wealth creating businesses and free market principles we should be defending.
Thanks,
Christopher Martin
No comments:
Post a Comment