Sub cost went up?

Community General Discussion
122

Ain’t that the truth of it. I mean it is nice to know in a general sense where the money is going to, but at the end of the day “knowing” doesn’t actually impact me.

123

The Sales and Use portion is here:
https://www.mass.gov/guides/sales-and-use-tax

More general info can be found here:
https://www.mass.gov/guides/massachusetts-department-of-revenue-tax-guides

124

Thanks! :smile:

125

You’re quite welcome. :smiley:

126

Yea cause one dollar is so much

2 Likes
127

LOL yes exactly.

128

I find it interesting that the US federal income tax wasn’t brought into the picture until the 16th amendment was passed in 1913. Think about it … except for a brief period during the War Between The States, the government of the United States got along just fine for 126 years without a federal income tax. It ran off of tariffs and excise taxes collected. We got to keep what we worked for and earned.

Guess that didn’t sit too well with the politicians, always looking for another bite of the apple …

129

Reminder that it’s prudent to check what new laws go into effect after the new year for your state and local governments.

130

Historically speaking, it wasn’t that the government got by without a problem – there were prior income taxes to the 16th Amendment. It was that tax law at the time was a blanket percentage of income, and though later repealed, the tariffs and excise taxes hurt low income citizens to a significant degree and were trivial to high-income individuals or groups.

The 16th Amendment is mostly designed to prevent state governments from screwing over the federal government in various ways to avoid paying. Which also historically, they did. (Dig up some info on the Articles of Confederation, and how hard it was for the Continental Congress to collect taxes to pay for the Continental Army.)

131

It was a struggle between state and federal power. Pre-Civil War favored the states. Post Civil War cemented the absolute power of the federal government over the states(by taking away their rights to secession). The federal government, as we know, is insatiable when it comes to tax collection.

132

Every post we stray further and further. Where will this post go. That’s an interesting idea

133

I think CA voted in Dec for tax hikes, ya’ know so they could help another brother.

134

yep.
Mine now adds $1.11 in taxes.

135

Eh, I suppose, but that’s part of what makes the system we have sort of work. It’s hard for either entity to become too powerful when they butt heads with one another. Ain’t perfect, but it’s a fair bit better than our original draft.

136

Except it aint just a dollar. Everything I buy online now is likely to be taxed.

1 Like
137

Califorina got loads of taxes… Not much of a golden state anymore. More a dull color state.

2 Likes
138

I didn’t say anything about anything being simple. I was finished until you came in here and, by your own definition, started being rude.

It is a concrete fact that the sub cost is the same and sales tax, which is a state/city/county based charge, is the reason for the increased cost.

The OP started out implying that the sub fee went up. It did not. I realize that he put a question mark at the end of his title, but again… Consider the audience in these forums who become inflamed over the smallest of things and often don’t use, or understand, punctuation.

Interrogative or not, the title is inflammatory to a crowd that is ready to run in with pitch forks. But…

Since we’ve fully stated what this thread is actually about…and that there has been zero increase in the price of the subscription, it’s probably more comedy than anything else at this point.

Peace! :peace_symbol:. Now I am really leaving. :fallen_leaf:

139

History of US Federal Income Tax:

"During the Civil War from 1861 to 1865, the government realized that tariffs and excise taxes alone could not generate enough revenue to both run the government and conduct the war against the Confederacy. In 1862, Congress established a limited income tax only on people who made more than $600 but abolished it in 1872 in favor of higher excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol. Congress re-established an income tax in 1894, only to have the Supreme Court declare it unconstitutional in 1895.

"In 1913, with the costs of World War I looming, ratification of the 16th Amendment permanently established the income tax. The 16th Amendment states:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

“The 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to tax the incomes of all individuals and the profits of all businesses. The income tax enables the federal government to maintain the military, construct roads and bridges, enforce the laws and federal regulations, and carry out other duties and programs.”

“By 1918, government revenue generated from the income tax exceeded $1 billion for the first time and topped $5 billion by 1920. The introduction of the mandatory withholding tax on employee wages in 1943 increased tax revenue to almost $45 billion by 1945. In 2010, the IRS collected nearly $1.2 trillion through income tax on individuals and another $226 billion from corporations.”

Prior to the 16th Amendment, Congress had no power to collect income tax, as determined by the SCOTUS in 1895. The 16th was necessary to establish a federal income tax.

1 Like
140

Thank God, your fourm policing wasn’t needed or wanted. I figured out why it was more, then you wanted to make into somthing it’s not. You made it worse.

All I was implying is end cost, I paid more than last month. Then you started throwing technicalities and such. Doesn’t matter cause in the end I paid more than last month due to taxes. Which means in the end I paid more all together. We were repeating the same info you just wanted to argue about it

141

Okay, cool. Whatever floats your boat. We aren’t going to agree on that, so I’m fine dropping it.

Ultimately, you’re trying to slam the OP over what they’ve said having the potential to confuse other people whose understanding of the facts is their own responsibility to sort out, on the basis that what they’ve said was phrased in such a way that it could cause unrest.

If you felt the thread was intended to cause unrest, you could have corrected the misconception and left, flagged the OP for trolling, or both, and left.

Considering the audience is irrelevant here. If people are looking for something to be upset about, they’ll find it. The handling of such situations is important – if one’s efforts to affect damage control so that a community one perceives the way you’ve stated you perceive this one come across as inflammatory themselves (and they do in this case), one’s efforts to prevent inflammation/unrest in the community are going to be fruitless.

So, put simply:

Maybe just back off a little and don’t act like everything is so serious.

1 Like