Governor Ron DeSantis signs largest tax hike in Florida history:

[69360]

Eh, don't care. DeSantis is still the best governor in the country and it's not even close. I'd still move to Florida in a heartbeat and will continue to make moves to do so. I'm more than happy to pay a couple more dollars in an online purchase in exchange for saving the 6.85% New York takes out each of my paychecks.

Been in FL for 4 months now. It's been good so far. Not sure if this is permanent or not but I like it here.

[The Northbreather]

It's not a tax hike, it's a mandatory request for voluntary donations

I might have to clip that one Tex

[Occam's Banana]

From this article:

The bill is estimated to tax consumers $1 billion a year, with the money first earmarked for the unemployment trust fund, which became depleted because of massive job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Businesses pay taxes that go into the trust fund and, without another source of money, would have faced higher taxes to replenish the fund.

To those saying this isn't a tax hike, if it isn't a tax hike then how is it supposed to result in the state having more revenue to replenish its unemployment fund?

Note also that the "massive job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic" did not actually occur due to the pandemic, but rather due to the policies imposed by the Safety Fascists in reaction to it.

It is a consumption tax which is fine if it excludes food which it does, this encourages savings and Buffy should have to pay tax on her $200 hat from Amazon. When online prices for China junk is higher people start going to thrift stores to by a flashlight which is what they should have been doing all along.

Hail, tovarisch! Given your demonstrated knowledge of what people should (or should not) buy, where they should (or should not) buy it, and how much they should (or should not) pay for it, it is my great honor to nominate you as Economy Tzar of All Amerika!

May I respectfully suggest that if you get the position, you appoint Comrade Bernie as your co-Commissar? Like you, he too knows how the people should (or should not) be permitted to spend our money - and making sure that all the Comrades Buffy out there don't spend our money the wrong way is a lot of work, so you will probably need some help.

So cameras at stop lights constitute fine increases because they catch people who break traffic laws (and increase the risk of a collision) and who would skate but for the cameras?

And radar guns should be called fine increases as well. For that matter, hiring more IRS employees or increasing the IRS's budget is a tax hike. In fact, anything that helps the enforcement of tax collection or the detection of unlawful activity that carries a monetary penalty is a tax/fine hike, right?

"Tax hike" in this context is a misleading rhetorical phrase designed to appeal to people who are either ignorant about the existence of use taxes or don't care about complying with them.

Will the revenue collected by state governments in general or Florida in particular increase? Yes. Did the tax payable by purchasers increase? No.

A "tax hike" in this context is exactly what it is - again, all obfuscatory hand-waving to the contrary notwithstanding.

Unless traffic cameras, radar guns, and IRS agents are all just fake, inoperative props that don't actually do anything and don't result in the actual enforcement of any fines or collections, then they are in no way analogous to some unenforced "on paper only" rule.

And when cameras, guns, and agents are all fake and inoperative, but are then replaced with real and operative ones, then yes - yes, they would indeed effectively "constitute fine increases" and "tax/fine hike[s]." Ditto for any previously unenforced tax rules that are replaced with enforced ones.

You don't get to have it both ways. Either this is a new tax hike, or it is an old tax hike that is only now being effectuated. Either way, it is a tax hike. To assert otherwise is willfully obtuse.

[Invisible Man]

So cameras at stop lights constitute fine increases because they catch people who break traffic laws (and increase the risk of a collision) and who would skate but for the cameras?

Yes. That is the whole point of cameras at stop lights. The jurisdictions that use them succeed in stealing more money by their use than they otherwise could. If the point was merely to distribute fines more evenly among all those who violate traffic laws with a method that captures a very high percentage of them, rather than a much lower percentage, without resulting in more money being taken from the population, then that could be done by lowering the amount of fee per violation commensurately with the expected increase in the number of fees collected. But this is not what is done. Jurisdictions use stop light cameras because it results in more revenue for them.

Also, stop light cameras do not only result in fees for people who do things that increase the risk of collisions. They result in fees for anyone who runs red lights, no matter how careful they are, no matter how empty of traffic the intersection is, and no matter what extenuating circumstances might justify running it. A human enforcer of traffic laws at least has the ability to consider such factors before deciding to write a ticket. A stop light camera is an unthinking machine that applies a one-size-fits-all rule to all cars that pass under it regardless of the differences between them. A person who at 2 am needs to get somewhere without delay, and who slowly approaches a red light, confirms that there are no other cars anywhere to be seen in all directions and then proceeds to drive through it as safely as if it were a green light, will receive a ticket in the mail a week later by a machine that knew nothing of safety, without ever having been given a chance to explain the extenuating circumstances before the ticket was issued, or even having been notified on the spot at the time of the violation that a ticket was issued so that they could make a point to jot down notes and collect evidence that they could later use to argue their way out of a ticket before a judge if needed.

No, stop light cameras are not about decreasing risks of collision. A means of increasing the money a jurisdiction collects by fines is precisely all they are.

And yes, by the same token, a means of collecting more money by taxes is precisely all that the bill this thread is about is.

[Invisible Man]

Nice spin. They already were responsible for those taxes, they just weren't paying them.

It is really weird that you can utter this spin right here and charge me with spin all at the same time.

They weren't paying them because they didn't have to. Now they have to. That's a tax hike. That element of being compelled to pay whether you agree to or not, is what makes taxes taxes.

By your own explanation, we have two scenarios:

1. The status quo, wherein there is an amount of money that the state of Florida claims people who purchase things online are responsible to pay the state (money to which the state has no just claim), while leaving it up to the people to decide for themselves whether or not they agree with that claim, and thus to pay the amount if they agree and not to pay it if they don't.

2. The new law, which will result in the state of Florida collecting more money than it does in the status quo, because in addition to claiming that people are responsible to pay that money (again, money to which the state has no just claim), it will also compel them to pay it by making online sellers enforce this tax, by threats of consequences to those who refuse to comply which are ultimately backed up by deadly force.

Spin is claiming that scenario 2 does not entail the state committing more theft than scenario 1.

[acptulsa]

They result in fees for anyone who runs red lights, no matter how careful they are, no matter how empty of traffic the intersection is, and no matter what extenuating circumstances might justify running it. A human enforcer of traffic laws at least has the ability to consider such factors before deciding to write a ticket. A stop light camera is an unthinking machine that applies a one-size-fits-all rule to all cars that pass under it regardless of the differences between them.

Very true.

A person who at 2 am needs to get somewhere without delay, and who slowly approaches a red light, confirms that there are no other cars anywhere to be seen in all directions and then proceeds to drive through it as safely as if it were a green light, will receive a ticket in the mail a week later by a machine that knew nothing of safety, without ever having been given a chance to explain the extenuating circumstances before the ticket was issued, or even having been notified on the spot at the time of the violation that a ticket was issued so that they could make a point to jot down notes and collect evidence that they could later use to argue their way out of a ticket before a judge if needed.

No. You make some good points about the human factor there. But those cameras are generally triggered at the moment the light turns green the other way. Someone honestly trying to get through legally but misses by inches, causing no danger, gets fined. Someone who flat out enters the intersection well after his or her light has turned red, when opposing traffic is flowing freely and the danger is greatest, goes undetected.

[merkelstan]

Note also that the "massive job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic" did not actually occur due to the pandemic, but rather due to the policies imposed by the Safety Fascists in reaction to it.

This is something that needs to be hammered every time some unthinking muddlehead makes the error.

[69360]

It is really weird that you can utter this spin right here and charge me with spin all at the same time.

They weren't paying them because they didn't have to. Now they have to. That's a tax hike. That element of being compelled to pay whether you agree to or not, is what makes taxes taxes.

By your own explanation, we have two scenarios:

1. The status quo, wherein there is an amount of money that the state of Florida claims people who purchase things online are responsible to pay the state (money to which the state has no just claim), while leaving it up to the people to decide for themselves whether or not they agree with that claim, and thus to pay the amount if they agree and not to pay it if they don't.

2. The new law, which will result in the state of Florida collecting more money than it does in the status quo, because in addition to claiming that people are responsible to pay that money (again, money to which the state has no just claim), it will also compel them to pay it by making online sellers enforce this tax, by threats of consequences to those who refuse to comply which are ultimately backed up by deadly force.

Spin is claiming that scenario 2 does not entail the state committing more theft than scenario 1.

The law to collect sales tax on out of state purchases was on the books. Now it is enforced. That is the facts here. You can elaboratly spin it any way you choose, but it doesn't change reality.

[Matt Collins]

The law to collect sales tax on out of state purchases was on the books. Now it is enforced. That is the facts here. You can elaboratly spin it any way you choose, but it doesn't change reality.

The reality is that now more money is coming out of our pockets. That's a tax hike by every definition.

[TheCount]

So cameras at stop lights constitute fine increases because they catch people who break traffic laws (and increase the risk of a collision) and who would skate but for the cameras?

When government chooses where to place the cameras based upon the ability to make the greatest profit, yes. When it is marketed as a revenue-generating proposition, yes.

The goal of those sorts of cameras is not to solve some societal ill but to reap the revenues of traffic fines.

[Invisible Man]

The law to collect sales tax on out of state purchases was on the books. Now it is enforced. That is the facts here.

And those facts, exactly as you just described them, constitute a tax hike.

To say otherwise is spin.