I would like to say I am an Independent. I just don't like it when someone bashes one side & looks the otherway at the problems there side has as well. I will shut my big fat mouth now.
Soda tax?
- Thread starter Surefire
- Start date
This may explain the taxes on soda and related treats!http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html
An uninformed person may agree with you. However the current administration is putting Bush's debt to shame by greatly beating it. And increasing the size of government just makes it worse.
Surefire is correct that the last administration wasn't very conservative with their spending. Just another reason so many people are leaving both major parties.
Using taxes as a punitive controlling tool? I'd rather educate. That's freedom.
How about people educating themselves and demanding proper labeling?
Even better? Drop all the subsidies on HFCS and tariffs on sugar that make it so HFCS is cheaper than real sugar to use.
Although if they use this soda tax to help medicare, I couldn't care less, even as someone who's enjoying this throwback cola phase.
No, since the impact on the payee is clearly disproportional.
The bottom line is that NO tax can ever possibly be fair. The two (related) issues are a) what kind of unfairness you want built into the system in order to fund public expenditure and b) how much public expenditure should be.
I would argue that the "least worst" option is to minimise public expenditure, thus minimising how much tax is required in the first place. Then in terms of raising the money, use a flat direct tax to raise part of the income in a simple & transparent way and consumption based indirect taxes to raise the balance, which is again simple & transparent, raising from each according to their expenditure. Avoid introducing any forms of allowances, exemptions or other "smoothing" modifications into the system, which will distort the system and generate unexpected/unintended turbulent sequelae.
I wouldn't argue this was fair, but to my mind it's a better balance of unfairness than either a pure direct flat tax with no indirect taxes (this seems to be your suggestion), or the progressive sliding scale direct tax with a byzantine system of allowances combined with consumption taxes (the current awful system), or indeed a pure consumption-based indirect tax (like Surefire has proposed).
I guess it boils down to how you define "fairness", which is a pretty nebulous concept if there ever was one.
I would say that rather than thinking about "fairness" in designing a tax system, it's better to consider "a minimally invasive balance of unfairness, with a focus on keeping things as simple as possible".
Completed agree, Gertch.
Perhaps, but not unduly so. It would also incentivize people to enhance their skills or business to make more money which would further diminish any disproportionality.
Agreed.
Which leads me in the direction of the use tax rather than an income type tax.
But it's not like any of this will happen any way. Politicians are going to still want to have strings and levers to push and pull for themselves and friends.
Maybe it's because of Surefire's sig, but when I first skimmed over this, I was positive that it read, "Completed agree, bitch."
I Think that comment is for another type of forum.Maybe it's because of Surefire's sig, but when I first skimmed over this, I was positive that it read, "Completed agree, bitch."
I'm thinking something in my mind merged Gertch and brighter somehow. 
I said this would happen the last time they raised the cigarette tax.
One of the bone heads that ran for Premier in BC yesterday was going to raise the price of a 6-pack by $3 from what I read,
So The current premire ( a convicted D/D in Hawaii) got back into office.
so count you self lucky
So The current premire ( a convicted D/D in Hawaii) got back into office.
so count you self lucky
And how would said education be done and at what cost? If you disagree with a tax on HFCS, do you also continue the libertarian argument and reject taxes on alcohol and tobacco?
I'm thinking something in my mind merged Gertch and brighter somehow.
Well that would be a first for sure!
Private funding most likely. Right now the teachers union is running a propaganda ad on radio asking people to contact their reps to seek new revenue for education. (The same union that is denying my city from setting up a course for advanced students and offering merit pay to those teachers involved.) There are people who will donate money to causes they believe in. And saving us from ourselves is not a roll of our government. I'd also turn back laws requiring helmets, seatbelts, alcohol and tobacco tax. Vote for me and we can offer change and freedom for the future.
Similar threads
