Obama is gonna tax your soda...

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

You could have allowed Chrysler to go through the normal bankruptcy process.

this

 

[johnbubby5]

wow.... all the black people wanted obama..... well now you got him... at his best

 

[csu87 10+ year member]

wow.... all the black people wanted obama..... well now you got him... at his best

At least he's acting black. Spending money he doesnt have. Too bad we cant kick him out of his house when he runs out of money

 

[rtillaree 10+ year member]

What if they start taxing Mila Kunis jpegs???? Hmmm.

well, then we might have an issue...

I know i'd personally like to tax Mila's ***...

oh zing...

 

[Rmsanger 10+ year member]

I will preface my statement to say that I voted for McCain and am not a huge fan of Obama but I do agree with this form of taxation.

If we can isolate the inputs of unhealthy nutrition and tax the living bejeepers out of it; I'm all for it!

I've always been a proponent of consumption based taxes rather than on the income side. Sales & Excise taxes on consumption are the best way to transfer the cost burden to those who create it. Excess traffic is a cost to society thus tolls do a good job of taxing those who create it. I think they should tax the hell out of fast food, coffee, nicotine, soda, and desserts.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

 

[psych0ticnemes1 5,000+ posts]

I will preface my statement to say that I voted for McCain and am not a huge fan of Obama but I do agree with this form of taxation.
If we can isolate the inputs of unhealthy nutrition and tax the living bejeepers out of it; I'm all for it!

I've always been a proponent of consumption based taxes rather than on the income side. Sales & Excise taxes on consumption are the best way to transfer the cost burden to those who create it. Excess traffic is a cost to society thus tolls do a good job of taxing those who create it. I think they should tax the hell out of fast food, coffee, nicotine, soda, and desserts.

That is an interesting perspective. I'll have to research more about consumption based taxes before I comment on it.

 

[Enellz 10+ year member]

wow.... all the black people wanted obama..... well now you got him... at his best

Its crazy how people said we dont vote enough before obama, but a majority of black people have always voted dem. People say 'blacks' voted him in, but white people were more than 50% of his votes. And I see more obama stickers on white peoples cars than blacks. So where are you geting this statements.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I will preface my statement to say that I voted for McCain and am not a huge fan of Obama but I do agree with this form of taxation.
If we can isolate the inputs of unhealthy nutrition and tax the living bejeepers out of it; I'm all for it!

I've always been a proponent of consumption based taxes rather than on the income side. Sales & Excise taxes on consumption are the best way to transfer the cost burden to those who create it. Excess traffic is a cost to society thus tolls do a good job of taxing those who create it. I think they should tax the hell out of fast food, coffee, nicotine, soda, and desserts.

I don't support such tax basis merely because when the desired outcome is reached, tax revenues dwindle and it becomes necessary that we find a new evil.

That is an interesting perspective. I'll have to research more about consumption based taxes before I comment on it.

It's an externality-based approach. Consumption-based taxes will lead you down an (IMO) incorrect road. The keyword for your search should be externality.

 

[Rmsanger 10+ year member]

I don't support such tax basis merely because when the desired outcome is reached, tax revenues dwindle and it becomes necessary that we find a new evil.
It's an externality-based approach. Consumption-based taxes will lead you down an (IMO) incorrect road. The keyword for your search should be externality.

Point taken it should be a supplementary method of taxation combined with property, corporate, and personal income. I do think it makes sense to match health care spending directly with these types of goods; it helps to drive the right behavior long-term. Probably makes sense to tax sweeteners, corn syrups, etc..

 

[mcsoul 10+ year member]

I will preface my statement to say that I voted for McCain and am not a huge fan of Obama but I do agree with this form of taxation.
If we can isolate the inputs of unhealthy nutrition and tax the living bejeepers out of it; I'm all for it!

I've always been a proponent of consumption based taxes rather than on the income side. Sales & Excise taxes on consumption are the best way to transfer the cost burden to those who create it. Excess traffic is a cost to society thus tolls do a good job of taxing those who create it. I think they should tax the hell out of fast food, coffee, nicotine, soda, and desserts.

No no no!!!

This is inhibiting liberty, people are free to eat what they want and go into bankruptcy if they have no health care and get sick as a result of their lifestyle.

Consuption taxes as you should know will inhibit a behavior in a free society, when the consumption taxes fail to deliver the projected revenue, we all get

saddled with the cost of the programs that are supposed to be paid for by the tax in addition to the loss of liberty. It cannot work because the whole idea is

immoral. If you think it's that bad for you then ban it. The fact is, it's not these products that are bad, it's the abuse of them. As you should also know,

government never "tightens it's belt" due to a short fall in revenue.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Point taken it should be a supplementary method of taxation combined with property, corporate, and personal income. I do think it makes sense to match health care spending directly with these types of goods; it helps to drive the right behavior long-term. Probably makes sense to tax sweeteners, corn syrups, etc..

Only if the legislation were written with sunset clauses on what we did with the revenues.

The matching principle makes sense only if you believe demand is inelastic...if both sides of the equation are elastic, then matching makes perfect sense.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

No no no!!!
This is inhibiting liberty, people are free to eat what they want and go into bankruptcy if they have no health care and get sick as a result of their lifestyle.

Consuption taxes as you should know will inhibit a behavior in a free society, when the consumption taxes fail to deliver the projected revenue, we all get

saddled with the cost of the programs that are supposed to be paid for by the tax in addition to the loss of liberty. It cannot work because the whole idea is

immoral. If you think it's that bad for you then ban it. The fact is, it's not these products that are bad, it's the abuse of them. As you should also know,

government never "tightens it's belt" due to a short fall in revenue.

It was settled a long time ago it is in the best interest of the state that people remain alive. Consider that attempting ******* is illegal.

 

[mcsoul 10+ year member]

Only if the legislation were written with sunset clauses on what we did with the revenues.
The matching principle makes sense only if you believe demand is inelastic...if both sides of the equation are elastic, then matching makes perfect sense.

There is no such thing as a sunset for a spending program, they just print the extra $$$.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

No no no!!!
This is inhibiting liberty, people are free to eat what they want and go into bankruptcy if they have no health care and get sick as a result of their lifestyle.

Consuption taxes as you should know will inhibit a behavior in a free society, when the consumption taxes fail to deliver the projected revenue, we all get

saddled with the cost of the programs that are supposed to be paid for by the tax in addition to the loss of liberty. It cannot work because the whole idea is

immoral. If you think it's that bad for you then ban it. The fact is, it's not these products that are bad, it's the abuse of them. As you should also know,

government never "tightens it's belt" due to a short fall in revenue.

WHat? I thought it was the government's role to decide what is good and bad for us, then punish the bad behaviour through taxes. Oh help us federal government!

Look at how readily some people (like Rmsanger) have embraced this line of reasoning. It's scary how quickly people will abandon their liberties and accept control by the government.