TorilMUD Forums

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html

I told you this was coming.

"Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something government should discourage the consumption of," Mr. Jacobson said.

If you voted for cigarette or alcohol taxes, you are obligated to support this. Get out there and vote yes in the name of "free" healthcare!

Oh no, not a miniscule soda tax! I can't believe I'll have to spend an extra 10 cents per 12pack so poverty stricken people during a huge recession can get healthcare. Damn liberals!

OHH NOES THEIR RAISIN MAH TAXES!!!!

I drink soda incessantly, all day long. Probably six cans a day. I don't care about this.

I can't wait till they start having a condom tax, or a child tax, a pc tax, a toilet tax, all those fun nifty things that are probably already being thought about in some room.

Yay us!!

Nokar wrote:I can't wait till they start having a condom tax, or a child tax, a pc tax, a toilet tax, all those fun nifty things that are probably already being thought about in some room.

Yay us!!

It's called sales tax, and it already exists.

That said, without the programs that taxes pay for we'd be Somalia.

Sarvis wrote:...without the programs that taxes pay for we'd be Somalia.

Well, without SOME programs that taxes pay for. Without some programs that taxes pay for we'd be a better country. There are good examples of both the positives and negatives of taxes.

so short sighted. Do you think tobacco taxes started out at 3.50 a pack?

This is not the right way to raise money for social problems. Tax everyone or don't tax anyone at all.

kiryan wrote:so short sighted. Do you think tobacco taxes started out at 3.50 a pack?

This is not the right way to raise money for social problems. Tax everyone or don't tax anyone at all.

This does tax everyone that buys soda.


Adriorn: Without getting into THAT debate, my point is that some taxes are always going to be necessary in order to build and maintain any kind of society. Without government programs (importantly including police and a criminal justice system) we'd effectively have no government, and would deteriorate rapidly into a country like Somalia... which, if I understand the news I've skimmed recently, is basically screwed due to a lack of any strong central government.

Tax everyone or don't tax anyone at all.

So you're against gasoline tax, sales tax, cigarette tax, heating oil tax, phone taxes, income tax, personal property tax, estate tax, social security tax... wait, what am I saying? You're a republican, you really ARE against every possible kind of tax.

So you're against gasoline tax, sales tax, cigarette tax, heating oil tax, phone taxes, income tax, personal property tax, estate tax, social security tax... wait, what am I saying? You're a republican, you really ARE against every possible kind of tax.

I'm ok with taxes that are fair. A cigarette tax to pay for children's healthcare is not fair. A cigarette tax to educate people about the dangers of smoking is at least within the realm of fair. A gas tax to build roads is fair, a gas tax to fill a budget short fall is not. Sales tax is regressive and I don't like it preferring something more universal like an income tax (or preferably the flat income tax). I don't like the estate tax, you should be able to give what you have away ... especially to your kids ... without being taxed at 50%. I'm not a big fan of social security tax because its not going to be there for us when we retire.

I really hate property tax because you can never own your home, you can only own it as long as you can pay your taxes.

kiryan wrote:because you can never own your home, you can only own it

I love conservative logic...

By the way, having something taken away as a penalty for committing a crime does NOT mean you never owned it.

kiryan wrote:I really hate property tax because you can never own your home, you can only own it as long as you can pay your taxes.

You left out most of his sentence Sarvis.

While it could have been written clearer, its quite easy to discern wht he means in this sentence. Your attack on his logic is petty and unwarranted. Your attack against all Conservatives based on this statement is kind of ridiculous.

Corth wrote:

kiryan wrote:I really hate property tax because you can never own your home, you can only own it as long as you can pay your taxes.

You left out most of his sentence Sarvis.

While it could have been written clearer, its quite easy to discern wht he means in this sentence. Your attack on his logic is petty and unwarranted. Your attack against all Conservatives based on this statement is kind of ridiculous.

You know what, it wasn't unwarranted or petty and while it was easy to discern what he meant the rest of my post ALSO responded to that. The fact is that this is about the typical logical quality you see out of him and many conservative leaning people.

Taxes are theft.
You don't own something if you pay taxes on it.

Please. Just. Please. Try to think, and understand what taxes are and what is really going on.

You own your house. There are taxes on your wealth, which is represented by the house. You are paying taxes because you own it and if it is taken away it is because you committed a crime.

In certain eras you could have your hand taken if you were caught stealing. This does NOT mean that people didn't own their hands.

Corth wrote: Your attack against all Conservatives based on this statement is kind of ridiculous.

Oh, and the "attack" on all conservatives was based less on this specific statement than everything I've heard or seen them do over the last 8+ years.

I understand your logic, your technical definitions, but realistically you don't own something if you have to keep making payments to keep it (tax or otherwise).

kiryan wrote:I understand your logic, your technical definitions, but realistically you don't own something if you have to keep making payments to keep it (tax or otherwise).

Kings had to pay soldiers to guard their castles and land holdings from invaders. Does this mean the king did not, in fact, own the land he ruled?

Guards and soldiers didn't take his castle away or garnish the kings treasure when he didn't pay them, nor did they really dictate how much is paid. I'll finish your next post for you, since you'll probably say the guards would rebel if unpaid or go on strike if not paid enough. We all know the GUMA (Guard Union of the Middle Ages) wouldn't stand for that. If your going to use this kind of logic for your arguments we will be here all day, so how about explaining why property tax is necessary forever instead of operating like other asset taxes.

Look, you are paying the state to maintain your claim of "ownership" and defend it for you. If not, you can see how long you can "own" land in the absence of a government. Here's a hint: it depends on how good of a shot you are and how many bullets you have.


EDIT: Also, you cannot own land. Land outlasts you, and can always be taken by force (relatively easily in fact.) You own a deed, which is a legal document saying you have control over that land. That control and deed are enforced by a government. You pay property taxes so that the government can maintain your control over that land.

Well I'm done with this one, your clearly not capable of structuring arguments beyond analogies and poor logic.

Right.

Your logic was clearly exemplary. :roll:

Another case of "let's present nothing then claim the other guy doesn't listen to reason."

I never claimed mine was, in fact I presented my 'logic' as an example of how that line of thinking is flawed and ended my post with how arguments using this kind of logic go knowhere. My logic statement was no less correct than yours, and you chose to retort with yet another. If you really believe that without property tax we'd all be on our porches holding shotguns then I wish you all the best.

Botef wrote:I never claimed mine was, in fact I presented my 'logic' as an example of how that line of thinking is flawed and ended my post with how arguments using this kind of logic go knowhere.

Pointing out that an analogy does not 100% fit the situation does not invalidate the logic. The king has to pay to keep his land, and Kiryan has to pay to keep his land. What actually results in it being taken away is largely irrelevant.

My logic statement was no less correct than yours, and you chose to retort with yet another. If you really believe that without property tax we'd all be on our porches holding shotguns then I wish you all the best.

Without government you would. Property ownership resolution is one of the most important things government does.

Can it be paid for in a different way, sure. But then Kiryan would just be claiming he doesn't own his income or some other claptrap. Property taxes are a tax on your wealth, as are income taxes, and any other tax you can name. So I apologize if I don't see the difference.

The difference is you pay income tax once, but pay property tax forever.

Yeah, THAT shows you don't own land. (Nevermind the sales taxes, earned interest taxes, and doing-anything-but-stuffing-it-in-your-mattress taxes...)

Oh yeah, and then there's the mattress tax. ;)

Botef wrote:The difference is you pay income tax once, but pay property tax forever.

I really don't see how you are arguing with Sarvis here. I think his analogies are just fine for the point he's trying to make. As far as your income only being taxed once as opposed to property being forever, well... Land generally appreciates -- which is why most people bought homes rather than renting; therefore, your property could be said to gain you "income" in a way. It is the same as taxing other investments -- which you put your income into. When you make money, it is taxed. When there is a general rule of appreciation (in the case of real estate) and an anticipated appreciation in value, I wouldn't see why they wouldn't continue to tax it if taxes on income are virtually the same by design. You gain, you get taxed. It's pretty simple.

Alternatively, you could just say what Sarvis has been saying -- that you are paying the government for their protection. Directly, you pay them to protect your land from invasion or other such state of illegal appropriation. Your income is handled in a slightly similar fashion with FDIC insured banks. You pay taxes to the government so they will be able to insure your deposits within an FDIC bank -- otherwise you would either risk the bank screwing you or stuffing your matress and hoping somebody doesn't wipe you clean while you're held at gunpoint. If you are not saving your income, you are spending it -- which becomes taxed again. So, no, your income is never just taxed once. Basically, to avoid losing the tax game, you have to avoid the hemorrhage that is bound to happen with your income. Put it in a savings acount which has an interest rate:savings ratio greater than the total expected taxation, bonds, CDs, IRAs, real estate, etc. Safty is not cheap. Those $1.3m missiles do not pay for themselves, you know.

RE taxes to me seem more fair than income. You have property in a certain jurisdiction. As a landowner you should contribute towards the schools, police, sanitation, etc, in your area - until you no longer own property there.

I was thinking more about property taxes and Sarvis' stance that its a tax on wealth. The problem with property taxes is that you are paying them on something that is not generating income like a normal tax. Do bank accounts or stocks get taxed? No, the interest or gains do. You can have 1 million in the bank and pay no tax, but if you have a 1 million dollar house you're going to pay 20k a year in taxes on it. Capital gains I think is reasonable (taxing the gain on a house).

It just feels wrong to tax a basic necessity (shelter)... sales tax usually doesn't include food partly for that reason... I still don't have a good argument against Corth's point of property taxes supporting the local services.

Kiryan,

You do bring up an interesting point with taxes. One thing that is not taxed is unrealized capital gains on stocks or most forms of ownership. This is different than how real estate is treated although it is also subject to capital gains taxes although their is an exemption. One could argue that it is a huge give away to the truly wealthy by not taxing unrealized capital gains. Thoughts?

The exemption used to be 500k, I'm not sure how big it is now, I think they raised it quite a bit, but the exemption used to be claimable only after a certain age (like around the late 50s). This supports the government's american dream. You buy a house on credit (which costs you 2x as much and gives banks healthy profits), spend your whole life paying it off then sell it in your retirement to pay for your medical bills. If you are foolish enough to try and pass it to your children they get dinged with 50% inheritance tax. The system we have created and belive in is a farce.

And if you look at house appreciation over time, it appreciates at the rate of inflation or 2-3% per year since the 20s... Owning a home is not a good way to increase wealth. So while some people do make money on their houses (and cash it out using home equity loans), I think the normal capital gains effectively taxes you on any "income" you are deriving. Now I have heard that you can make 100k on your house then buy a 100k boat or a car and not get dinged with capital gains which seems like a good loop hole... but on the other hand you had to buy a basically depreciating asset. You can't use it to go on a European vacation, only hard goods.

As far as not taxing unrealized gains being a huge benefit for the wealthy... I'm not sure I see it that way. How many people thought they were rich because their house was worth 500k or 1mill... today its worth 300k... or their retirement portfolios losing 50% of their value. Unrealized gains are not real until you cash in. Thats when the tax should hit you. If you are taxing people on unrealized gains, then there is very little reason to invest in companies / stock market. You might as well go back to making something where your gains are real and immediate.

Property taxes are a tax for services. That is why they are vastly more expensive in town than out in the middle of the country...more services.

Start your house on fire and see who comes...regardless of whether you own or rent, have 0% equity or 100%...believe in abortion bans or evolution.

Everyone pays property tax...except truly homeless people or those on other gov't assistance. Renters pay through their rent. Just like any other product, the end-user pays all upstream costs...including tax. As a business owner, I pay the property tax on my landlords' buildings in a very clear line item.

The fact is that the tax code is intentionally complicated to provide kickbacks and loopholes...not to be fair.

And as far as ownership...it is a ridiculous concept anyway. You gave some paper to someone in exchange for different paper that says you control such and such. Only the government really cares...ask the indians!

quote from a random opinion piece. Half of people who originally "supported" higher sin taxes, changed their minds after hearing the suggestion that it hits the poor the hardest.

"As for financing options, majorities support increasing taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and "unhealthy snack foods" but not soda and soft drinks, which experts regard as major contributors to the rising tide of obesity. (When those who favored this approach heard the argument that so-called "sin taxes" would hit low-income people the hardest, however, six in ten changed their minds and opposed it.) As for taxing employer-provided benefits, a solid majority are opposed, even when they are told that only the "most generous" benefits would be affected. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/ ... sBySection

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1261435 ... tions_news

A "tuition" tax. While I can see the merits being that non profits don't pay much in taxes and in college towns you can have half your population or more be essentially non tax paying students... taxing education just seems wrong. Its not like students have any money in the first place... and education is something we want to encourage...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-boro ... 00332.html

Tax on tanning beds... why the fu*k would we tax tanning beds (or botox / plastic surgery which was removed) to pay for healthcare for all Americans?

You are looking at it the wrong way. It's not so much we want to tax this or not tax that in order to encourage a certain type of behavior. Policy is beside the point. It's that we need to obtain X amount of revenue, and we need to spread the misery around in such a manner that the people who previously voted for us, continue to do so.

I get that its a simple matter of revenue vs expenses.

However I'm arguing that its not right to raise money from a specific group of people for a completley unrelated purpose because they lack the clout to fight it. Its discrimination, its tyranny of the majority. Its they came for X, they came for Y, and when they came for me there was nobody left to protect me.

kiryan wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/boehner-calls-tanning-tax_b_400332.html

Tax on tanning beds... why the fu*k would we tax tanning beds (or botox / plastic surgery which was removed) to pay for healthcare for all Americans?

Satire story, dude. Do you really think anyone would be outraged about a tax on "Orange Americans?"

... you should be outraged. we all should be.

What is the justification for taxing tanning beds to pay for healthcare? I suspect because of a higher incidence of skin cancer? but Really? Maybe we should tax toys because of accidents caused by slipping on them, choking on them ect... or cars because of all the automobile related health issues or TVs because they encourage sedentary behaviors?

Politically it may be unfeasible to pass a tax increase, but taxing a small population of people for no reason other than because not enough people will object is wrong. A Soda tax makes a lot more sense than a tanning bed or botox tax.

Its just nuts that people think this is no big deal. It undermines fairness and strengthens a bad precedent set by alcohol and tobacco taxes. Anything you can remotely tie to a health condition is fair game for taxes.

kiryan wrote:... you should be outraged. we all should be.

What is the justification for taxing tanning beds to pay for healthcare?

IT
IS
NOT
REAL
IT
IS
A
SATIRE
NEWS
STORY
YOU
READ
THE
ONION
AND
GOT
FOOLED

Am I making myself clear?

...

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/art ... RTUNE5.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/fashion/24Skin.html

... the tanning bed tax is real, I've read it on several news sites...

The article may have been spoofing / satire against a Republican... but the tax is really in the healthcare reform bill unless fox, cnn and nytimes all got fooled.

Kiryan wrote:I get that its a simple matter of revenue vs expenses.

However I'm arguing that its not right to raise money from a specific group of people for a completley unrelated purpose because they lack the clout to fight it. Its discrimination, its tyranny of the majority. Its they came for X, they came for Y, and when they came for me there was nobody left to protect me.

Pretty much any general revenue tax aimed at a particular class of people is discriminatory. Its tyranny of the majority because, hey - majorities are what win elections. Often they give a pretextual justification. For instance: we will tax smokers to make up for increased government healthcare expenditures resulting from smoking. Of course nobody really knows how much that additional cost amounts to - it's just a guess, but government somehow puts a number on it. Ultimately it all goes into the general revenue fund with no oversight regarding whether the tax is equitable in relation to it's pretextual justification. Of course, stuff like the library.. we spread that cost around to people who don't read books. But with the smokers, they need to pay their fair share. Completely arbitrary and discriminatory.

Taxes that go towards a particular revenue stream are more easily accountable. Like bridge/tunnel tolls. If they goto a transit authority for the purpose of maintaining the bridges and tunnels, and the cost of such maintenance and the revenue from the tolls is easily accounted for, then oversight is possible. Those taxes are exactly what government should be about - maintaining public infrastructure at the expense of those who use it, to the extent they use it. No discrimination at all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6 ... 9918418:z0

Shaving 3 grams off the daily salt intake of Americans could prevent up to 66,000 strokes, 99,000 heart attacks and 92,000 deaths in the United States, while saving $24 billion in health costs per year, researchers reported on Wednesday.

Maybe someday they can figure out some way to force you not to watch TV more than 2 hours a day because it will save us $50 billion in health costs or 125 billion if we take walks. I mean if they want to tell you what to eat, how long until they tell you what to do?

Does sound like a classic case of the whipping boy.

Apparently soda tax already has a beach head.

--Small excise taxes on soda are already in place in Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia, and Chicago imposes a 3 percent retail tax on soft drinks. Soda taxes were proposed in at least 12 other states in 2009, though none were approved. Mississippi is considering legislation that would tax the syrup used to sweeten soda; the mayor of Philadelphia is weighing a tax on soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks, and Gov. David Paterson of New York has indicated that he will recommend a penny-per-ounce tax on sugared beverages in his 2011 budget.

And btw, its big tobacco all over again.

--The model, clearly, is tobacco. Dr. Frieden, who promoted a soda tax when he was a health commissioner, sees further parallels between soda and tobacco: “There are aspects of the food industry that are reminiscent of tobacco — the sowing of doubt where there’s no reasonable doubt, funding of front groups, use of so-called experts, claims that new products which are safer for consumers are available, and the claim that they are not marketing to children.”

The government will of course spear head the effort to villanize another industry all in the pusuit of government expansion into your life because they know whats best for you.

--Attention is being paid: Last week, the Obama administration announced a plan to ban candy and sweetened beverages from schools. A campaign against childhood obesity will be led by the first lady, Michelle Obama. And a growing number of public health advocates are pushing for even more aggressive actions, urging that soda be treated like tobacco: with taxes, warning labels and a massive public health marketing campaign, all to discourage consumption.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/weeki ... ttman.html

One could say that making addictive drugs controlled substances was the start of federal government control.