Soda tax?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Now they're talking about a government sales tax on top of your state sales tax too.

If you mean the FairTax...AFAIK, that would actually replace all other taxes. The intention is supposedly to replace the entire convoluted mess of a tax code, indeed to do away with the very process of filing taxes (so I would not see a role for the IRS in this - it would probably cease to exist), and replace it all with one simple sales tax, on absolutely everything.

They'll start to tax thingy. You know...Thingy.

Thingy?

Well, it would certainly make chartered accountancy a much more interesting job.

 

[Saturn0660]

Soda? I dunno what that is... Do you mean a Pop tax?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

You know what's epically fucked up about this? Soda wouldn't be so cheap if the government wasn't subsidizing corn growers to the extent that it does. Ever wonder why high-fructose corn syrup is in everything, instead of cane sugar? Because we subsidize the hell out of corn!

Eliminate the subsidies and you will have the same effect without loading a tax increase onto the consumer end of it.

 

[John Picard]

That's crazy.

Y'think that's crazy? While the rest of Washington state is 8%, King county is 9% sales tax (which includes online purchases shipped to here...I've checked shipping costs to my parents house in eastern Washington versus my apartment in Seattle and it is different). There's also talk of (if it isn't already approved?) of charging for plastic bags at the grocery stores! We have our lovely stadiums to thank for the hyped sales tax. Luckily there's no state income tax in WA so it makes up for it a little, I wouldn't put it past the government to approve that now. They're gutting both the insurance for the poor and our education programs, while building a tunnel underneath downtown and starting to charge tolls on the bridges connecting eastern King county to Seattle where they hadn't before. I can't wait to move out of Seattle after law school...it's going to be even more of a congested mess than it is now in 3 years. As for a soda tax...there's already a gas tax, liquor tax, tabacco tax, as long as they include candies that include HFCS as well it would seem to fit along those lines.

They're talking about doing the same sort of stuff here. But of course the cuts only happen to police, fire and education. And old extortion trick but it works.

Oh, and our landmark mandatory healthcare (lol) might be losing the state supplied plans because it just too expensive. Ya think?

There's plenty of fat to cut here and many laws and rules that can be changed to oust the good ole boys club we have going on.

And yet with a general consumption tax, the government would have more money, yet people scream that the so-called poor would be hurt. Yeah, BS

You know what's epically fucked up about this? Soda wouldn't be so cheap if the government wasn't subsidizing corn growers to the extent that it does. Ever wonder why high-fructose corn syrup is in everything, instead of cane sugar? Because we subsidize the hell out of corn!

Eliminate the subsidies and you will have the same effect without loading a tax increase onto the consumer end of it.

And yet the Sugar lobby is one of the most powerful out there. Oh yes, you think I'm joking. They've worked to block cheaper sugar imports, the cost being all candy manufacturing has move to Canada and Mexico.

 

[Gertch]

And yet with a general consumption tax, the government would have more money, yet people scream that the so-called poor would be hurt. Yeah, BS

If we have to have a tax I guess this one is probably the best. It would also make the argument that "fair" taxing means taxing the producers more, moot. Those buying boats and planes would still be paying more in taxes but according to their purchases. And necessities such as food and clothes could be tax free.

 

[John Picard]

And yet with a general consumption tax, the government would have more money, yet people scream that the so-called poor would be hurt. Yeah, BS

If we have to have a tax I guess this one is probably the best. It would also make the argument that "fair" taxing means taxing the producers more, moot. Those buying boats and planes would still be paying more in taxes but according to their purchases. And necessities such as food and clothes could be tax free.

Exactly. But the naysayers cry foul. They'd rather have a convoluted, disjointed, and conflicting tax code rather that one which is simplistic and more "fair" to those with lower incomes.

 

[Smiley]

There are valid reasons behind most of the items in the tax code, whether they are social policy-based or just reflections of economic reality. Could some of the complexities be removed? Absolutely. However, some provisions are needed beyond a flat tax percentage to be truly fair.

 

[bigdaddy]

How about making pot legal and taxing it!!!!

Mass, and several other states, already has a "tax" to make sure you return the bottles. In my mind that is a tax already, and a good idea.

And the corn syrup assholes have the money to do commercials saying their product is fine...

 

[Gertch]

However, some provisions are needed beyond a flat tax percentage to be truly fair.

The only truly fair tax is a flat percentage. Whether you make $10K or $10B it's only fair if each pays the same percentage.

 

[Holdfast]

The idea that a flat tax is fair is BS. It's just unfair in a different way.

No tax is ever going to be fair since depending on your perspective it's either legalised theft, or mandatory unnecessary insurance, or overpriced and unitemised bills for services.

Personally, if I was designing a tax regime from scratch, I would tilt it heavily towards indirect consumption-based taxes with a corresponding simple & low flat direct tax. Naturally I'm biased in that I'm picking a regime that suits me personally, but I also happen to think it's the most likely regime to reward an entreprenurial & aspirational culture within a liberal (in the classical sense) economy. It still won't be a fair tax regime, but it would be the one most likely to deliver a strong capitalist economy. And since the current regime is already unfair, I'll take that improvement.

Implementing such a format in our existing economies would have to happen VERY slowly to prevent economic chaos, and sadly there's never likely to be sufficient & sufficiently longstanding political will to drive it through.

Anyway, having such a belief means I don't object to the concept of a soda tax per se, but would want it to be revenue-neutral overall, and part of an overall shift in the tax burden from direct to indirect tax... since it almost certainly won't be, I'd be opposed to it since the other priority I would like to see is a reduction of the overall tax burden.

 

[Gertch]

I don't see where that is BS. If everyone paid a (out of my hat) 15% tax with no deductions then everyone is paying the same percentage. That's fair.

As for the sugar tax, it's just the latest example of people wanting to exert control over others. This time what they eat.

 

[Surefire]

And yet with a general consumption tax, the government would have more money, yet people scream that the so-called poor would be hurt. Yeah, BS

If we have to have a tax I guess this one is probably the best. It would also make the argument that "fair" taxing means taxing the producers more, moot. Those buying boats and planes would still be paying more in taxes but according to their purchases. And necessities such as food and clothes could be tax free.

I support a fair tax system, based on consumption.

However, having both income and consumption taxes at the federal level is IMO double taxation.

 

[Aragorn]

I wonder what the GOV'MENTS will do when there's no more money to tax?

Oxygen tax? Tax tax?

 

[miraclefan]

I wonder what the GOV'MENTS will do when there's no more money to tax?

Oxygen tax? Tax tax?

Taxed for liveing, Taxed too death, & Taxed ''for'' death.

 

[archeryguy1701]

Why should they tax soda? It's my call what goes into my body, and my soda consumption certainly doesn't effect anyone else. It would be one thing if my drinking Dr Pepper caused harm to other folks, but if it's just me, then they shouldn't be taxing in an attempt to discourage it. It's none of their damn business.

 

[Surefire]

Why should they tax soda? It's my call what goes into my body, and my soda consumption certainly doesn't effect anyone else. It would be one thing if my drinking Dr Pepper caused harm to other folks, but if it's just me, then they shouldn't be taxing in an attempt to discourage it. It's none of their damn business.

Unfortunately, because they can.

Nanny leaders seem to feel it is their duty to interfere via laws and double/triple/etc taxation.

 

[miraclefan]

To quate Early Cuylers hat, from squidbillies. I SUPORT THE FLAT TAX, CAUSE I'M FLAT BROKE!

 

[TGTheodore]

These taxes wouldn't be necessary without the BULLSH*T ADMINISTRATION of the last eight years. We're going to be paying for the Bush years for at least a few decades--probably more.

--Ted

 

[miraclefan]

These taxes wouldn't be necessary without the BULLSH*T ADMINISTRATION of the last eight years. We're going to be paying for the Bush years for at least a few decades--probably more.

--Ted

Obama isn't doing any better with HIS massive spending either. What has he cut from the budget again?

 

[Surefire]

These taxes wouldn't be necessary without the BULLSH*T ADMINISTRATION of the last eight years. We're going to be paying for the Bush years for at least a few decades--probably more.

--Ted

Obama isn't doing any better with HIS massive spending either. What has he cut from the budget again?

As a third party member not tied to either major party, I think both administrations are far from perfect. But after reading the rules just now about politics in misc, I'll leave it at that so this doesn't degenerate into TNG material.