what is the purpose of raising taxes on soda's, etc...

#28
#28
LouderVol said:
how are walking trails useless? Great way to increase land value and usually placed where no buildings can go.

increases traffic at local stores and restaurants, gets people off the roads (less traffic), encourages future private development, and is generally seen as an amenity.
Click to expand...

You pay my share.. I will take a car
 
#33
#33
LouderVol said:
talk about useless investments more roads won't fix or help anything past a certain point.
Click to expand...

It's better than stupid light rail ans car pooling .. the hov lanes are always empty.. which I love.. I drive by as I am the only one in the car..
 
#37
#37
It's funny if you read the results of these taxes, sales of whatever sinful item spike in the municipalities that border the high tax area. And guess what, if I'm having to drive out of the city to get Coke or Fritos, I'm picking up my other groceries there too. So you see sales of the bad item drop, but you also see an overall drop in sales tax revenue. Brilliant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#38
#38
I have no problem with punitive taxes as long as the government is going to subsidize health care costs through tax dollars. In fact, i think we should have taxes that directly correlate. Subsidize premiums directly with tobacco and liquor. Those tax dollars are ear marked to deal with pre existing conditions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#40
#40
Roustabout said:
I have no problem with punitive taxes as long as the government is going to subsidize health care costs through tax dollars. In fact, i think we should have taxes that directly correlate. Subsidize premiums directly with tobacco and liquor. Those tax dollars are ear marked to deal with pre existing conditions.
Click to expand...
Are you saying they should use all the taxes on alcohol to buy new livers for chronic users, or just generally that they should use this sort of thing to pay for everyone's healthcare?
 
#41
#41
What if a punitive tax actually worked? Say the sin taxes on cigarettes actually convinced every smoker to quit, think the government is going to be happy without that money or get it another way?
 
#42
#42
hog88 said:
What if a punitive tax actually worked? Say the sin taxes on cigarettes actually convinced every smoker to quit, think the government is going to be happy without that money or get it another way?
Click to expand...

Oh they'll get it another way. It's already built into the budget.
 
#43
#43
Ernest T. Vol said:
A tax by definition is supposed to be a nonpenal transfer for just operating the government. It is not supposed to be a punishment. A penalty is punishment and for discouraging certain behaviors. But in recent times, the line between a tax and a penalty has been blurred on purpose (especially by the left). People like the Obamacare nozzle Jonathan Gruber want to control our behavior through penalites disguised as taxes. They also will offer you a few peanuts through credits to encourage the "right" thinking, in their view. Here's a peanut for buying a hybrid car, going to college, buying a house, making your house more efficient, etc. Long gone is the idea of personal freedom and everyone making a small contribution in the form of a tax.
Click to expand...


Hey Ernest T! What is your take on the Trump tax plan?
 
#47
#47
hog88 said:
What if a punitive tax actually worked? Say the sin taxes on cigarettes actually convinced every smoker to quit, think the government is going to be happy without that money or get it another way?
Click to expand...
I think it'd be a net savings not having to treat so many people for emphysema, and or and lung cancer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#48
#48
VolunteerHillbilly said:
I think it'd be a net savings not having to treat so many people for emphysema, and or and lung cancer.
Click to expand...

Savings for who?

Plus the state will just go after something else to make up the revenue shortfall. I always said the tobacco companies screwed up when the first state sued them, they should have voluntarily pulled all of their products out of that state. When the tax revenue stopped their tune would have changed.
 
#50
#50
hog88 said:
Savings for who?

Plus the state will just go after something else to make up the revenue shortfall. I always said the tobacco companies screwed up when the first state sued them, they should have voluntarily pulled all of their products out of that state. When the tax revenue stopped their tune would have changed.
Click to expand...
Lots of people with smoking related illnesses on Medicaid. Plenty are on Medicare as well, and while Medicare is paid into by recipients during their working lives, it is heavily subsidized. Additionally, we're all chipping in for subsidies under Obamacare. The CDC estimates $170 billion in direct medical expenses for smoking related illness each year, although I don't know how much of that is paid by federal tax revenues. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/economics/econ_facts/ My guess is at least half, but even if it's just a few tens of billions that's still a ****load.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top