It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sin Tax

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Hey everyone,

I was watching the O'Reilly Factor and he presented a story about Washington State imposing sin taxes. They are taxing things like candy, gum, and (big sin here) Bottled water!! haha. I just think it's a bit funny. Any opinions?

Joe




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FBI 33
Hey everyone,

I was watching the O'Reilly Factor and he presented a story about Washington State imposing sin taxes. They are taxing things like candy, gum, and (big sin here) Bottled water!! haha. I just think it's a bit funny. Any opinions?

Joe

I have a lot of opinions it is just that I can't say them too openly. But, if I were to sum it all up I would say"No taxes"whether they be targeted at the rich or the poor, no tax, is fair tax.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by assasinforfather
 


I see where you're coming from. No taxes would be fair, but how would we pay for everything that taxes pay for?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FBI 33
 


That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Maybe we are being prepared for something? I don't know, O'Reilly is a mouthpiece for TPTB on the right wing side of the false paradigm. Perhaps they are testing the waters?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Hmm interesting...I wonder what we are being prepared for...



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I also heard about a proposed soda tax somewhere, not sure it came to fruition though. Good thing it's not in California, my co workers would s**t a brick if they didn't get their daily dose of aspartame and high fructose corn syrup.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rynocerous7
I also heard about a proposed soda tax somewhere, not sure it came to fruition though. Good thing it's not in California, my co workers would s**t a brick if they didn't get their daily dose of aspartame and high fructose corn syrup.

Ah, but in the state of California, we all do pay an additional tax for any and all bottled products that are sold through the stores, it is the CRV, and it is charged on every package that is liquid and consumed, no matter what it is. We already pay for it, and if they impliment a sin tax on top of that in California, the prices will raise up and be reflected at the stores.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


Very true my friend. It would be interesting to see the reaction here if such a thing were to occur. I don't drink soda, but there would be a lot of pissed off soda drinkers in CA!



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
What irks me about the 'sin tax' is that the majority of the people paying them are going to be in a lower socioeconomic class. I'm not sure if I'm 100% correct, but I would wager that middle to upper class consume a lot less pop, candy, tobacco and alcohol than those who are poor.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Raustin
 


I agree....That was my exact first thought.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
The sin tax is an old idea.

The idea that increasing the cost of "immoral" items (alcohol, tobacco) or behavior (prostitution, gambling) seems ridiculous to me for the very reason of what they lead to.

Taxing bottled water (the scapegoat du jour) candy, and the like really won't do anything but raise revenues.

To me, tax everyone and everything the same. Meaning uniform sales tax. We really shouldn't need anything more than that on the state level.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
The sin tax is an old idea.

The idea that increasing the cost of "immoral" items (alcohol, tobacco) or behavior (prostitution, gambling) seems ridiculous to me for the very reason of what they lead to.



As if taxing such things has some redemptive quality. A validation of sorts.

"They say old Sally S**k me paved more country roads in her 30 odd years than one would believe."



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Sin tax isn't fair when religions and churches are tax exempt. If they are going to tax then it needs to be fair. Its like the churches have representation, but the sinner does not.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FBI 33
reply to post by assasinforfather
 


I see where you're coming from. No taxes would be fair, but how would we pay for everything that taxes pay for?


The first thing to ask is "what is being paid for by what taxes."

The second thing to ask of that list is "which of these things could I absolutely not live without?"

Once you have your new list you ask "is there really no better way to provide these things?"

In the end you end up really pissed off.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I just hope they don't tax masturbation!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join