Representative Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) has a new proposal out that seems to be right on the dubious heels of the "Strip@Clothe" campaign to "help" the homeless. Rep. McDermott has just introduced legislation, H.R. 6501, that seeks to tax Internet gambling and use the "proceeds" to help those "in foster care and individuals in declining sectors of the economy." This seems to be a typical liberal strategy - for who wouldn't want to help orphans and such? (Perhaps those who believe it is the responsibility of people and not governments, however that is a different subject.) Who cares where the money is coming from if it is for a good cause?
Rep. McDermott's bill does not seem to actually legalize Internet gambling in the United States, so apparently he would seek to tax illegal activities. Well it was Ronald Reagan who said "one way to make sure crime doesn't pay would be to let the government run it" so this could be a way to stop Internet gambling - but the government would most likely find a way to eventually subsidize it. (As another great President Reagan quote (does he have any other?) goes "the government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.")
I am curious on how my Libertarian friends view the actions of some of those who support overturning the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and the argument on all the money that would come into the government coffers by taxing online gambling. Having worked at one of the finer Libertarian-minded think tanks I know that most good Libertarians are opposed to taxing anything on the Internet. It is also highly dubious if such an action would be profitable. Taxing Internet gambling would place an enormous burden on Internet companies, at a time when the pro-Internet gambling forces say the current proposed regulations place an unfair burden on the banking companies. Why should a company be forced by the government to become a tax collector for more than 30,000 tax jurisdictions across the country? If that expense doesn't put them out of business then the countless lawsuits from state governments claiming they didn't collect a sufficient amount of taxes on their behalf will.
Hat tip: Friend on the Hill
Comments (1)
As far as I am aware, the libertarian position on gambling is very different from the FRCs, so why are you seeking their advice?
The FRC takes the social conservative position: Gambling is inherently and unalterably destructive, both for moral and practical reasons, and so it is the duty of government to ban it and to enforce that ban regardless of the form of the gambling.
The libertarian position is that gambling is a private business contract that affects noone else, and so the government should get it's nose out of other people's business - if people want to gamble, it's their own money they are risking, and their responsibility. It's not the place of government to ban anything merely because a few people consider it dangerous.
As for internet taxation... good luck enforcing that! All it will do is put American online gambling companies at an economic disadvantage, or drive them out of business entirely, leaving the market to forign casinos who don't have to deal with US regulations.
July 17, 2008 8:53 PM | Comment Permalink