The tax plan of some Internet platforms is misguided

Last year, Congress passed (all Democratic votes only) a nearly $ 2 trillion spending bill they dubbed “the US bailout.” It authorized the federal government, among others, to give money to millions of individuals, schools and small businesses. It included funding for COVID vaccines, testing and contact tracing. In addition, there was funding for transportation systems, agriculture, cybersecurity, and healthcare. The list goes on.

Given the state of the COVID-related economy shutdown and the COVID infection rate at the time, it is difficult to challenge some of the bill’s provisions. Certainly, funding for vaccine, testing and contact tracing was justified; and probably the funding to keep the schools open was justified.

But I have to believe that there was a lot of waste in the bill. For example, was it necessary to send $ 1,400 to everyone, whether they were working or not? As an example, we recently learned that the Boston Bomber also received a check for $ 1,400. But this is just a small example of the waste contained in this bill.

In addition to spending, of course, there are tax provisions designed to increase revenue. Three or four provisions deal with large businesses. But there is one provision that will affect many average taxpayers starting this year. This is clause 9674 of the bill. This requires internet platforms like eBay, Etsy, and the like to issue 1099-Ks to anyone on their site who has more than $ 600 in transactions in a year.

This will impact millions of Americans who use eBay, Etsy, or similar platforms primarily to hold a garage sale; which, given their costs, will achieve little or no profit. This will certainly complicate their tax declaration. Obviously, this was not meant to catch the 1 percent. This measure was intended to target low- and middle-income people. And why?

It is expected to earn the IRS about $ 8.4 billion over 10 years. This is a stupid change for a federal budget of over $ 6 trillion a year. Many thanks to Congressman Carbajal and Senators Feinstein and Padilla.

Failure to enforce library fines hurts us all

Reading the article on the Library Fee Rejection Proposal makes me feel that the virtue of being responsible still holds true. Granted, it doesn’t seem like a lot of money is being generated, but disrespect for other people’s property is encouraged.

My parents instilled in me respect for other people’s property. The books and library materials being mainly paid for by others (taxpayers), and by donations, they belong to everyone. However, that doesn’t mean that your financial ability to pay should be overlooked. If you can find a way to get to the library to check out resources, you can find a way to return them – a neighbor, a friend or on foot to return it by its return date at the latest.

This is called respect and the nominal fee is the price you pay for being irresponsible. If the library wants to forgive your fines, then it should be from donations, the library has expenses. Otherwise, it sends the message that someone with the means and the responsibility should be supporting you, just because of your lack of funds or respect.

Children in particular, and adults need to learn this. It is a skill and a duty that have lifelong consequences. If you are not ready to take responsibility for a book, a privilege and not a right, what else are you prepared to abuse?

Think about it, if you lend something to someone, you expect it in return, it’s the same with a book, and with returning damaged material. Someone has to pay for it, not the lender, but the borrower.

The library belongs to everyone and should be accessible to everyone, but it’s not free to abuse or disrespect, or apologies either. Then no one will have a valuable source of information and entertainment. And we all lose.