Tax remittances

It was interesting to see Del. Jonathan Isechal's proposal to begin taxing remittances from Palau.

People have talked about using taxation as a penalty to keep money circulating locally for years, and I've always thought of it as unfair double taxation. States like Texas and Arizona explored the subject, but evidently backed down after predictably strong opposition by the Mexican government.

The Philippine government? Well, they seem to be doing some skimming on their end with a new tax.

Isechal's bill has some merit, just from the standpoint of policing possible criminal activity and funding the government's supervision. There are a lot of other noble goals stated in the bill, but it's obvious the real motive is revenue generation.

That's where I have a problem: "This will not impact majority of the citizens of the republic," Isechal said. Well, yeah, because by definition the people affected are not likely to be voters and can't fight back.

Ain't got nobody

A parallel came up a few days ago when I rhetorically asked on another blog why the local government hadn't raised the CNMI minimum wage above $3.05 an hour. Most people ignored the question, but one fellow said it was because the federal minimum here was $4.05 and nobody was affected.

Exactly. Nobody who is likely to vote fits into the many exceptions. That's the response I was fishing for, not because I expected any results, but just to provide an uncomfortable reminder.

And most people ignored the question.