Is it Taxation, Censorship, or Both?
Philadelphia goes after the bloggers.
It seems that the news each day brings a fresh set of government outrages, from police beating up bystanders to prosecutorial misconduct to regulation of some peaceful conduct. Not surprisingly, governments fight back when angry citizens publicize the abuses.
In Maryland and elsewhere, people who record police officers making arrests are charged with felonies and threatened with decades in prison.
In Mississippi prosecutors gain a conviction employing “expert” witnesses whose testimonies go beyond the bounds of legitimate science, and the courts swallow the nonsense.
And now Philadelphia is going after a popular method for citizens to express their discontent with government: blogs. The rulers of the City of Brotherly Love have not outlawed blogs; rather they are using what the nation’s fourth chief justice, John Marshall, called the “power to destroy”: taxation.
The city government is demanding that some bloggers pay $300 for a licensing fee and then pay taxes on all profits. Of course, most bloggers don’t make any money; their posting is informal and irregular. That, however, does not matter to Philadelphia officials. The Philadelphia City Paper reports:
Even though small-time bloggers aren’t exactly raking in the dough, the city requires privilege licenses for any business engaged in any “activity for profit,” says tax attorney Michael Mandale…. This applies “whether or not they earned a profit during the preceding year,” he adds.
So even if your blog collects a handful of hits a day, as long as there’s the potential for it to be lucrative — and, as Mandale points out, most hosting sites set aside space for bloggers to sell advertising — the city thinks you should cut it a check. According to Andrea Mannino of the Philadelphia Department of Revenue, in fact, simply choosing the option to make money from ads — regardless of how much or little money is actually generated — qualifies a blog as a business. The same rules apply to freelance writers. As former City Paper news editor Doron Taussig once lamented, the city considers freelancers … “businesses,” and requires them to pay for a license and pay taxes on their profits, on top of their state and federal taxes.
For all of the revenue talk, however, I suspect there is a more important reason for this new government outrage: intimidation of anyone who would use a blog to criticize government officials. The connection is easy to make. Bloggers in Philadelphia who might utter words of dissent against the city’s ruling class would make themselves visible, especially if the comments took hold with a larger audience. Thus city officials would be able to access the records to see if the blogger had paid for a business license. If not, the rogue would be brought to justice.
This past year I used one of my blogs to write on the trial of Tonya Craft and its aftermath in northwest Georgia, and I admittedly took no prisoners. I reported on obvious instances of alleged perjury from prosecution witnesses and pointed out huge inconsistencies in the prosecutorial evidence.
Obviously, I did not earn friends on the prosecution side, and I am sure the prosecutors and judge would have loved to have shut down my blog, especially since the jury acquitted Craft. (Three days after the verdict the district attorney declared that the blogosphere “created an environment hostile to the State’s ability to receive a fair trial.”)
In this day of governments grasping for revenues, it is not surprising to see Philadelphia trying to milk the bloggers. I suspect other cities will follow suit. However, I believe that the larger issue is that governments once again are looking for any means to silence their detractors. Entities with the power to tax their critics also have the weapons to destroy them.
Comment by ricketson on 25 August 2010:
your facts are wrong– its not all bloggers. rta
Comment by William Anderson on 25 August 2010:
As I re-read the article, I realize the guy is technically correct: it supposedly is only the bloggers who have ads for revenue who are to be taxed. However, I doubt seriously that the authorities will stop there, as they will continuously expand the definition of “for profit” to include anyone with a blog. Since lemonade stands tend to make more profit than do most blogs, this whole thing is a ruse to shake down people who give their opinions on the Internet.
Furthermore, I suspect that the authorities will demand taxes from anyone who writes anything about something in Philadelphia, even if the blog and blogger are located outside the city. (Cities already collect taxes from professional athletes who are not from that city, but play games there once in a while.) One cannot underestimate just how pernicious Philadelphia’s action really is, and how far it will go.
Comment by Eben Sales on 25 August 2010:
This sounds like the answer to the prayers all elected, appointed, and gerrymandered officials. Thimnk of all the revenue generated by licenseing each and every tea party individudal — and maybe everyone with a differing opinion, expressed or not. Total thought control would be achieved with out imprisoning 2/3 of the country, even those not registerd to vote. What a boring result.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 25 August 2010:
Please note that in editing the piece, I cut relevant material from City Paper quote. I have restored the cut material.
Comment by Aron Boyette on 25 August 2010:
Despite the complete lack of economic sense surrounding a $300 business privilege license regardless of the volume of exchange taking place, I do not think that the city is only targeting bloggers. I think it is likely that they are also targeting little kids running lemonade stands, people selling stuff they no longer want out of their garage, and every other small scale “activity for profit”. Despite the article’s focus on bloggers, I see no actual evidence that the city is attempting to intimidate anyone using a blog to criticize their government. More likely, Valerie Rubinsky, the article’s writer, believes that reporters (many of whom are bloggers themselves) should be free to engage in whatever commerce they like without having to pay a fee while other businesses (not in the noble business of reporting news) should continue to face outlandish license fees. (Is that a violin I hear?)
Comment by Charlie on 25 August 2010:
Technically correct or not, this is bordering on First Amendment-grade censorship because of the way that the statement and the intents of the city are presented.
This is an outrageous abuse of taxing power and ought to be stopped. I can’t help but wonder if they’ll target more the center/center-right writers and leave “community activists” and the left alone. I’d love to see how evenly this is applied if they dare even pursue it.
As to income, you’re required to pay taxes if it exceeds $600 a quarter and most reasonable places make exemptions on business permits if:
1. The business takes up less than a certain amount of your floor space in your home.
2. The business earns less than x dollars a year.
And yes, many places have tried to put little kids’ lemonade stands, lawn mowing, dog sitting, baby sitting and whatever else out of business. Most of the time, it’s been overturned. When it hasn’t been, I’ve seen a few instances where some anonymous stranger comes and “buys” the young entrepreneur’s stock, material, whatever.
I’ve wondered if it’s a guilt-ridden bureaucrat that realizes how they’ve once again helped government make an ass of itself.
Pingback by At Home in Hespeler » The Pimply Minion’s Rebellion of 2010… on 25 August 2010:
[...] I agree with William L. Anderson at The Freeman: …I suspect there’s a more important reason for this new [...]
Comment by TSurine on 25 August 2010:
While I think the writer seems a wee bit paranoid about censorship…Isn’t this similar to what started the Boston Tea Party? The Stamp Act? Taxing tea and the businesses that sell it without of course representation. Or so the story is told. The government takes more than 1/2 of your income in taxes one way or another. They tax your income, then when you use that income to purchase a home, they tax that money again by taxing the property based on value. If you then go to the store to buy things to fill the home they tax your income again. Then if you sell the home and make a profit, watch out, you guessed it they tax that money too. Where I live, if you want to sell produce at the Farmer’s Market in your town, you must purchase a $25 permit from the city, a $300 permit from the state, and if you sell anything in a jar (think honey) you must purchase an additional processor’s permit for $250. Selling stuff at the Farmer’s Market suddenly became unprofitable.
Comment by Darren on 26 August 2010:
Boycott Philadelphia Until the Bloggers Are Free!
http://www.facebook.com/?sk=2361831622#!/group.php?gid=109219885802158
Comment by Darren on 26 August 2010:
A better link:
http://www.facebook.com/?sk=2361831622#!/group.php?gid=109219885802158
Comment by Ron Amos on 27 August 2010:
Where I live you have to fill out a tax form before you can sell anything at a swap meet. You are required to have a business license to do business from home. These kinds laws are likely to have become more severe in recent years but since I have retired I no longer have to pay attention. I live in the heart of Conservative America, Salt Lake City Utah.
Pingback by Bijna geniaal: belasting als censuurmiddel | Dagelijkse Standaard on 28 August 2010:
[...] aan te schaffen. Wat kan het belang van de overheid zijn bij zulk een zotte maatregel? TheFreeManOnline.org heeft wel een idee: For all of the revenue talk, however, I suspect there is a more important reason for this new [...]