I thought this link worth posting. Im not sure exactly which forum it should be in. A story about the IRS double taxing Marijuana stores in Colorado and elsewhere. These stores it seems are taxed up to 80%. I dont know what can be done to fix this but I thought it worth bringing to as many people’s attention as possible by posting the story. More here:
“A lot of times, instead of paying a tax rate that should be 30 to 40%, they are paying rates between 80 or 90%,” Cornelius, the accountant, said. “I even have a client right now that is paying more than 100% effective tax rate.”
One of the persistent arguments for legalizing marijuana was that the government would be making money on taxes instead of spending it on enforcement. There you go.
I dont believe this to be relevant. I doubt even the most partisan big government advocate would argue that an 80% rate on small business optimises the Government’s tax revenue take.
What the fuck has this got to do with libertarians? (And what are “left libertarians” anyway? People who believe in the virtue of sharing their selfishness equally with everyone else? :rolleyes:)
Not even accurate. It’s a story about not allowing some usual and customary business deductions for stores that sell marijuana. That may be stupid, but that’s not double taxing.
It’s also not on the IRS. It’s a federal law. Go complain to Congress. If the IRS didn’t enforce this law, people would be complaining about the IRS not doing its job and selectively enforcing the tax code.
And I don’t see where libertarianism even comes into it, except maybe in a roundabout “taxes are bad” overgeneralization.
Most of your first few points are fairly unimportant. The main point is that no small business should be taxed at 80%; that money grabbing Federal Government shysters are behaving like money grabbing Federal Government shysters. Whether these shysters be the IRS or Congress.
I get it. Your view of libertarianism is blinkered towards the status of what is legal or illegal. You dont view behavioural inducement is part of the libertarian debate. Sorry, but I do.
My other points were basically valid. The federal government, back 30 years ago, passed a law aimed at the illegal drug trade.
Now that some states are legalizing some of those drugs, there are unintended consequences.
What part of that screams libertarianism or shysterism?
Your idiocy is noted.
Um, no. My view of this particular issue is that the tax rate, whether it is 10% or 80% is not deliberate but an unintended consequence of a law passed 30 years ago and not yet updated to match the modern day.
That has fuckall to do with libertarianism. Nobody said, “Hey, these legitimate businesses should be taxed at 80%”. Not Congress, not the IRS. 30 years ago, they wanted to take aim at illegal drugs and decided some tax deductions couldn’t be made. That’s fundamentally different from the story you present.
If you choose to get butthurt over this perceived slight to libertarianism based on some kind of fucked up “facts” that you contradict with your own news article, you must be a real joy at parties.
So, basically a new label for anarchism. Poles apart from the right wing Randian, market-worshiping ideology that is what is usually meant by “libertarianism”. Just as stupidly unworkable, I suppose, but not nearly as nasty.
It seems to be a mish-mash term applicable to different principles including “Geolibertarianism”, a doctrine which in its simplest form agrees with me that land taxes should constitute a much larger portion of total taxation that they do at present.
Getting back to the OP, all this means is that to price of legal weed will rise until people are driven back to the black market. No one wants that, not even the government. This is birthing pangs, it will work itself out.
The federal government has agreed to back off enforcement because the American people want to see how the Colorado experiment works. If an archaic section of the tax code applies ridiculous tax rates and disallows normal business deductions, the experiment isn’t getting a fair shake.
If opponents of Colorado’s new legislation are correct in their concerns, they should want it proven on a level playing field. Then, if things all go to shit, they can make their case for why marijuana legalization is a very bad thing.
Businesses are not licensed by the federal government. They are licensed by the state. So yeah, nice effort and all, but they are in every sense “legitimate businesses.”
Question for tax specialists: Could the customers set up a non-profit co-op, pay all expenses, and hire the entrepreneur as a salaried agricultural specialist?
I’ll guess the answer is No, criminal operations do not qualify for non-profit status. But is there some workaround?