Comments

1
Ow. Tiny print hurts old eyes!
2
@1 The tiny print is tiny because Dominic is, dishonestly, wanting you to not notice that he is admitting to supporting a highly regressive tax system. He even says, in the tiny print, those are fights for another day, as if that fight will ever come during high times.

Dominic, your addendum is hollow and unapologetic. Fucking stand behind your position of taxing the poor, and admit that what you're doing isn't going to change the system, and even further supports a fucked-up, broke-ass, system that puts the hard times burden on the poor.

The only reason you're standing against this measure is because it's supported by the Big Evil Corporations, and you hate them. You hate them SO MUCH! They're just SO EVIL!
3
Soda is fucking bad for you. If this was a new tax on fruit and veggies, I'd say no way. While I like a nice Diet Coke, Mexican Coke (with real sugar) or Weinhard root beer as much as the next guy on occassion, you have families that LIVE on the stuff. If this gets them to even consider a switch to something slightly more healthy like Propel, GOOD.

The revenue bonus to not let us fall into an absurd budgetless nightmare state is of course good too, in the short term.
4
Also: I equate it to smoking. I say nothing has done more to make people quit smoking than taxing the holy hell out of cigarettes, moreso than even all health warnings. Once I began seeing $8.50 a pack, it certainly got me to quit. If soda starts being forced to sell at prices higher than things like fruit juices, then we'll see good things happening. And yes, I'm advocating shameless social engineering to adjust public health through taxation. There's nothing wrong with that and the long-term benefits of encouraging healthy diets and generations of Americans that aren't fat slobs outweigh the short-term alleged bad.
5
@3 A lot of vegetarians live off of shit that is bad for you. A lot of veggie products are made with hexane. Why aren't we taxing all that shit? Hexane is an air pollutant that has caused chronic diseases in its factory workers...nevertheless what is consumed by people.

Where do you get the right to tax something that you deem "fucking bad" for you? Why the fuck are we taxing something that is consumed by the poor, taking a disproportionate amount out of their budget?
6
@4 At least you're admitting to social engineering through taxation, which is more than the commenters in the original article have admitted to.

Who's to determine the limits of the social engineering? Are we all going to be forced into a diet of Nutraloaf?
7
@2 is right - the problem with this tax is that the tax system in this state is broken. The politicians refuse to fix it in any sensible way, so we're left with the initiative process. This process is being dominated by nuts like Tim Eyman, and big corporations like the ones supporting I-1100 and I-1105, and the soft drink industry.

This is shit lawmaking. But then we have shit politicians running our state house and senate who are unwilling to fix things, so this is what we get.

8
@6 So lets reduce the taxes on cigarettes, then? What other ways can society encourage healthy behaviors? We're falling apart when you get 13 year old kids with Type 2 diabetes because they grew up on Coke and McDonalds and other shit like that.
9
...and this is why the Stranger is against the Liquor Inititives, right?

After all, they both would cut that revenue stream, and if, voting public forbid, the latest Eyman stupidity pass, it would be almost impossible to recapture those funds.
10
I have to agree with TheMisanthrope. If they were serious about trying to get people to reduce unhealthy behaviors (i.e., drink less soda), they wouldn't add a tiny tax increase to the price, they'd add an enormous increase that would make it next to impossible for lower income families to even consider.

By adding a tiny increase, those families will grumble about the price increase, but will very likely continue buying the product. The state only wants to dig into the lower income family's pockets a little bit more.

It's regressive taxation. Period. And it's a bad idea. There are other ways to get people to switch to healthier alternatives but the state would rather line its pockets instead.
11
@8 To me, cigarettes and hard liquor (not beer or wine...anything under 35 proof, really) fall under the category of "drugs." And, I love vodka. I wouldn't consider that a "food." I'm all for taxing non-medicinal drugs. Tax the hell out of my liquor (so long as I can still afford it on occasion). But, don't touch my beer.

But, if we could get a system moving that puts a much larger percentage on the wealthier populous, I would be all for reducing the taxes on cigarettes and liquor...just don't smoke them near me in a crowd, asshats at CHBP.
12
Christ, this nation of lard-ass drug users gets what it deserves.
13
"Tax the hell out of my liquor (so long as I can still afford it on occasion). But, don't touch my beer."

WTF?

haha

oh sloggers.....
14
@10,

Since prohibitive taxes are meant to discourage certain behaviors, they ultimately result in lower tax revenue over the long-term. Look at cigarettes for an example. State governments have to regularly increase taxes on cigarettes because, slowly but surely, smokers are quitting as a result of higher prices. A small tax is entirely about increasing revenue (on the backs of the poor) and has absolutely no relationship with improving people's health.
15
@14,
A small tax is entirely about increasing revenue (on the backs of the poor) and has absolutely no relationship with improving people's health.
I think that's what I said @10, no?
16
@15,

Yes, I was just adding the point that prohibitive taxes lower revenue.
17
Oh, but it's temporary! That makes it all hunky dory. Funny how whenever there's a crisis it's the poor who are asked to make a "temporary" sacrifice.

And "now" is never the time to do anything about it. Somehow "now" is always a good time to fuck the poor a little harder but income tax? Oh, "now" is not the time.

Ask again later. Sucker.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.