152 A question about the construction tax controversy.


Tom Garrett 3 years, 10 months ago

I'm not going to get into the current controversy over who should collect the taxes on construction--individual towns and cities, or the state. I know nothing about such things so I'll leave that decision to wiser heads.

There was just one thing that struck me as being odd when I was reading the article. I thought I'd mention it and ask you folks what you have to say about it.

It has to do with this comment:

"Major projects like the Blue Ridge pipeline and the construction of a college could generate substantial local revenues under the existing system."

That genuinely puzzles me. It seems odd that a company would be hired to construct something for a public entity--a town, city, county, or state---and would be charged taxes on materials which were going to be used for a public works project.

Think about it.

The state builds--say--a new courthouse. It then taxes the building materials being used. But who is it taxing? The state itself!

What sense does that make? Why charge a tax on something which is for public use? The money comes out of state coffers and goes right back into state coffers--minus the cost of collecting it and keeping track of it.

Why go to all the trouble of charging a tax on the pipes et al used in Blue Ridge? Why pay out the money with one hand and take it in with the other one?

Okay. I'm listening. Educate me.


Tom Garrett 3 years, 10 months ago

And here I thought I was the only one who didn't understand this.


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.