Online Now 2305

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

Online now 2262
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Reply

So the NYC soft drink ban starts tomorrow, eh?

  • God I hate new York. Fuggin idiots up here

  • You inferred points into my statements. I never said that bans/taxes would not affect the numbers that use item X. My point was that no matter what you do (see drugs), a large number of people will choose to use item X if it gives them pleasure. Of course taxes/bans/health info will alter the actions of potential users that are budget conscious or straight-liners WRT the law. Your numbers do not discredit my point that I was trying to make.

    signature image
  • I understand your point and it is how I once thought to a degree, but I started to see the big picture. You are right, in our current system, being fat, a smoker, serious drug user, alcoholic, adventure junkie ... anything that puts you at a significantly higher than average chance of being a burden to society does just that, consumes more tax dollars. Your solution (currently used a lot by gov't) to pay for this extra burden by taxation which in effect alters the free market (not just supply and demand determining prices) and infringes on the rights of the individuals (at least those the do so responsibly). I can eat fatty/suggary foods or drink in moderation (1-2 glasses of wine per day have been shown to be a healthier choice than not drinking at all, some studies have shown the same for beer and at least it isn't any more harmful) and not put any more burden on society than average.

    Instead of addressing the symptoms of the problem (how do we pay for extra burden), why don't we look at the root cause. Why is the gov't paying for them??? I am not going to argue absolutes, b/c it is easy to give an extreme where most would concede that they are OK with the gov't paying for the tab (ie drug addict dies while giving birth to child, child needs procedure X). As a general rule though, we should either phase out or limit programs that pay for their care. Average Joe chooses to sleep around without protection and contracts HIV (or overeats and has heart attack or...). My solution would not be to tax the "fatty cakes" or ban prostitution (by consenting adults, those involved in sex/slave trade should be treated in such a way that they pray for death), but rather not spend a dime of gov't money on them. They made their bed, now they lay in it. If they prepared (savings, insurance...), they have a willing friend/family or the charity of strangers, then fine, but not a dime of gov't subsidies for their care. The fact that some of my tax dollars go to pay for such cases is an infringement on my personal liberty. Should you feel inclined to pay for the poor choices of others, then you should be able to donate freely to that charity or take care of them yourself, but don't use the IRS to in effect take it from me by force to pay for a service not required of the gov't (those are limited to article 1 - section 8 of the Constitution or amendments).

    This post was edited by menichols74 13 months ago

    signature image
  • It's stupid, but I don't care. It would have to be a hell of a tax to make much difference in demand. More important ish to worry about than BLF's RC consumption.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Soda is more inelastic in price than say caviar or pedicures, but it's demand certainly elastic (demand varies based on price).

    signature image
  • BLF, that was my guess as to your take on that. I understand the resistance to the first part and by itself, I might be inclined to agree as a stand alone policy. I am an advocate of conversion to consumption only taxes. Something along the lines of the "fair tax" with the pre-bate for taxes paid up to the poverty level eliminates the regressive tax issue with respect to necessity items (all taxes paid are in essence a choice by the consumer). That's another thread though, as is the rest of this really (sorry OP). I am a bit pleasently surprised by your "Yes" without limitations on the second part. I want all of the loopholes and write-offs gone. This includes those that help the poor/middle class mostly: mortgage, child, ... as well as those that mostly help the rich: charitable donations, writing off personal items as business costs, pool all income together, I don't care where you get it (ie captil gains, but you use the net capital gains)... It also includes all tax credits: education, earned income, green energy...

    signature image
  • People are afraid to do anything communistic in nature, China has a "luxury tax" where income is taxed fairly but once you buy a rolls royce or a personal plane you get shafted. That may seem reasonable to those who truly want to save their money but anything that China does is automatically taboo here. As far as capital gains goes, something tbb knows nothing about, you're wasting your time in even bringing it up. Republicans have gotten the general public to think of capital gains as a "double tax" while refusing to acknowledge the loopholes involved.

  • For people like me (very middle class), when I pay capital gains taxes on my investments (which were largely made with post-tax traditional salaried income), it is double taxation. For the uber wealthy who make their money almost solely off of investments, then it really isn't double taxation. The problem becomes the differentiation, when does it stop being double taxed??? When you make > 25, 50% of your income off investments??? I don't know we can eliminate this by treating all income as just that, income (or better yet stop taxing income). Now I would say that a you should use your net capital gains as your "income".

    On the "communistic" comment, I would agree and am part of the "people" you refer to. If the "consumption tax rate" is 10% (arbitrary for easy numbers), the guy who purchases a Rolls will pay $40K in taxes (new ones avg about 400K), but the guy who purchases a new Camry will only pay about $3K. Why is there a need to punish the guy buying the Rolls? By choosing to buy the more expensive car they are in effect choosing to pay $37K more in taxes or more than 1200% more in absolute taxes. At what point does it stop being "reasonable" with respect to buying a car, watch, home... and become excessive? That is for each man to decide and thus why I am fundamentally against differntiation amongst items with respect to a consumption/sales tax.

    signature image
  • Just look at Warren Buffet vs trust fund babies world wide. Buffet may use those same available capital gains loopholes but he earned his money and lives rather modestly for what he is worth, I even saw numbers as low as living off 3% off his yearly profit. If a man wants to save his money and keep adding to his principle then fine, but a philosophical difference I have with some is yes, if you're out buying a rolls or a 4th million dollar property then you should be taxed exponentially.

  • Also, I'm 100% against double taxation, I just want people to know the differences. Your example of gains on middle class investments should be adjusted but look at this scenario, a mid to upper management/board of director/CEO/COO/you get the idea it's a lot of people working at a good sized corportation or firm gets paid 1 million a year. They work hard, fair market value, liberals can go eat a dick. Over 10yrs at that position they make 10m and with taxes they walk with roughly 6m...again liberals can sit on it and rotate. My issue comes in when they start taking 300k in "income" and 700k in stock shares...pay 40% on the "income" and sit on the shares for a year just to pay 15%. Over those 10yrs that's roughly 7.75m instead of 6m and that person hasn't done anything extra to deserve that money. It's also a win/win for employer and employee since the market is essentially paying those wages instead of the company. Those are the things I'm worried about.

  • 247Sports

    TroyTide

    So it's a jealousy tax. It's okay for a man to have money, but not if he buys nice stuff with it that you can't afford. I am not trying to troll you here, it's just that is basically what you are saying.

    Now you may think, "well yeah so what", well the problem is today it's excess taxes on the Rolls tomorrow the feds decide anything over 30,000 is a luxury.

    Btw the rich guy spending like crazy is adding more to the economy than the rich guy saving his money. Since both of their monies would be invested in the economy before they spend it. He is also paying more taxes, because of sales tax.

    This post was edited by TroyTide 13 months ago

  • Why do you want to tax the "Rich Spenders" more than the average joe or the "rich & frugal"??? Your logic seems odd to me. The person who is spending wildly is not likely using that much more gov't services, so why put a punative tax on him??? The spender is more than paying for his use of gov't services. He can't live in more than one home at a time or drive more than one care at a time, but ... By buying that other car, the 2nd home... he is employing more people (those that built the home, sold the home, made/service the car... The speding guy is doing more for the local economies and is paying a greater % of his income in taxes. You want to put an arbitrary "punishment/luxury" tax on him. Almost all will agree that the more you tax something, the less you get of it. Why would you want to discourage this spending fool?

    signature image
  • BamaOnLine

    DrStache