It’s a common practice in politics to tax things that you want there to be less of. That is why ‘sin taxes’ were created, as a means to make things that politicians say are bad for you ‘- such as alcohol and tobacco ‘- less appealing to buy.
These are classic cases of government affecting regular supply and demand. When things have a higher price attached to them, there is less of a demand for them. And taking it oppositely, if similar goods somewhere nearby have a lower price, people are more willing to go out of their way to buy them.
People want as much as they can get of everything they desire ‘- whether it is alcohol, tobacco or whatever makes them happy.
Free markets and cheap goods make many people happy, so people are willing to go out of their way to buy things that are over the border in sales tax-free
That’s why liquor and firework stores are so conveniently located right across the border and on the highway: People don’t mind going out of their way to get a good deal.
States like New Hampshire leave Massachusetts politicians two options if they want to spur growth and retain jobs in their economies: lower or get rid of the taxes that are making people go to other states to buy ‘- or attempt to further punish people who try to get the good deals.
The latter is the issue in the current Massachusetts Supreme Court case between Massachusetts Department of Revenue and Town Fair Tires. People go over the border to buy tires because they can save on the sales tax., or wait until one of the tax-free holidays.
The thing about tax-free holidays is that they can’t be regular or people would simply refrain from buying products until a specific time of the year. Thus, they haven’t been on a set date when we’ve had them, but only on special occasions.
Currently, businesses that have shops in both
Purchases that have been made entirely in New Hampshire have never been taxed like this before though, and the ways in which this case could be extended to any goods or services that Massachusetts citizens want to buy is alarming ‘- to say the least.
This principle was applied in 1930 during the Great Depression. The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act restricted trade to American goods so we would only buy goods from others in the country.
Over 1,000 economists wrote a letter to the president before he signed the bill into law, saying that ‘The proponents of higher tariffs claim that the increase in rates will give work to the idle. This is not true. We cannot increase employment by restricting trade.’
This act caused other governments to put tariffs onto the
Barack Obama’s stimulus bill even gained scorn and threats of foreign embargos on the
EU Ambassador John Bruton went so far as to say ‘We regard this legislation as setting a very dangerous precedent at a time when the world is facing a global economic crisis.’
And today, while
People don’t want to live in
Winston Churchhill said that ‘The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery,’ and our state’s philosophy of keeping everyone’s taxes at equally high levels is only making other states seem more appealing.
Everybody wants their children to have the best education possible, to have the best home and the best quality of life possible and these are simply easier to find in other places. So when I hear of my state keeping me from buying in better places because of their failed philosophies, I can only think that they have been taxing my patience for far too long.
Jon Petersen is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].
Word count:857
Pull quote: States like New Hampshire leave Massachusetts politicians two options if they want to spur growth and retain jobs in their economies: lower or get rid of the taxes that are making people go to other states to buy ‘- or attempt to further punish people who try to get the good deals.