Sin taxes never bother me but I hardly drink, never smoked anything and so FUCK EVERYONE ELSE MA TAXES!
You know we could just all share the burden and increase the overal sales tax but even leftists run for the hills when it hits their pocket book :P
Eh spreading it to general sales tax fucks more people than just people who want to drink or smoke. Like if we're being real we should go with an income tax, but as it stands I'm fine with sin taxes more so than general sales tax increases.
What do you mean fucks over more people? You mean makes more people share the burden of funding the state?
0
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
Sin taxes are pretty good, but they really shouldn't form the funding basis of essential programs. You get weird results, where like, I think it was Illinois, where the govenor was urging people to play the lotto to fund their schools.
I saw a pittsburgh commercial for their lotto that had me feel really bad for people who live in pittsburgh, well more than normal.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Sin taxes never bother me but I hardly drink, never smoked anything and so FUCK EVERYONE ELSE MA TAXES!
You know we could just all share the burden and increase the overal sales tax but even leftists run for the hills when it hits their pocket book :P
Eh spreading it to general sales tax fucks more people than just people who want to drink or smoke. Like if we're being real we should go with an income tax, but as it stands I'm fine with sin taxes more so than general sales tax increases.
The biggest probelm with Sin taxes is when they become assumed revenue streams for states. You end up with a double edged sword where you encourage peole ot stop doing things like smoking but need people to smoke to keep the lights on.
Shark I usually see a progressive consumption tax proposed by libertarians who accept taxes must exist, not liberals. Wasn't that Rand Paul's platform?
I ate an engineer
0
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
I think all sales taxes are dumb, at least on anything that costs less than like, a car
I don't agree that they, or the various regulations that exist, are killing the weed industry tho
i thought last time i researched it most liberal economists preferred (progressive) sales taxes to other taxes like income tax
Really? Like, the amount taxed increases as the price of the good or service increases? That seems really hard to sell to people even if they get to keep their entire income.
I think it's like VAT refunds where you get the money back later, enabling a system like income tax where you don't have to pay the first twenty grand or whatever?
That is FairTax, which is not exactly a progressive system. If you're taxing people at the consumption level, it's gonna be at least somewhat regressive pretty much no matter what you do, and stuff like the prebate only mitigates it to an extent.
Just do a progressive income tax!
no it's not
here i'll just look up an article instead of trying to explain
I think all sales taxes are dumb, at least on anything that costs less than like, a car
I don't agree that they, or the various regulations that exist, are killing the weed industry tho
i thought last time i researched it most liberal economists preferred (progressive) sales taxes to other taxes like income tax
Really? Like, the amount taxed increases as the price of the good or service increases? That seems really hard to sell to people even if they get to keep their entire income.
no like the amount taxed increases as your annual consumption increases. usually paired with a very hefty standard deduction.
Interesting. I don't know anything about economics so I can't really evaluate that, but it seems weird for a capitalist system to directly tax consumption. Maybe that's a result of the lingering idea of tax as disincentive though. It's not like people will stop consuming
0
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
You don't create a new industry by taxing the ever living shit out of it in infancy! That's just a recipe for RJ Reynolds making Marlboro weed cigs and driving all the locals out of business.
Light regs, low tax, let the industry explode in growth. More jobs, more revenue, new agribusiness, revitalized rural areas...
Some red state that's mostly fields is going to massacre WA weed business. Alabama Mama Jama or something is going to flood the market and WA will see its revenue crater. Then people will wonder what happened to their industry and never blame themselves.
the thing is, this isn't a new industry
it's a black market economy that's been slowly coming out of the shadows
as someone who occasionally partakes, i would prefer some pretty good regulation to control for quality/potency (particularly around things like edibles and oils)
i also fail to see how everyone rushing to grow weed wouldn't drive the price down, which affects profits
Sin taxes never bother me but I hardly drink, never smoked anything and so FUCK EVERYONE ELSE MA TAXES!
You know we could just all share the burden and increase the overal sales tax but even leftists run for the hills when it hits their pocket book :P
Eh spreading it to general sales tax fucks more people than just people who want to drink or smoke. Like if we're being real we should go with an income tax, but as it stands I'm fine with sin taxes more so than general sales tax increases.
What do you mean fucks over more people? You mean makes more people share the burden of funding the state?
Sales taxes are regressive. Sin taxes are equally or more regressive, but at least allow people to opt out by not doing an unhealthy activity. Regressive taxation fucks people over.
You don't create a new industry by taxing the ever living shit out of it in infancy! That's just a recipe for RJ Reynolds making Marlboro weed cigs and driving all the locals out of business.
Light regs, low tax, let the industry explode in growth. More jobs, more revenue, new agribusiness, revitalized rural areas...
Some red state that's mostly fields is going to massacre WA weed business. Alabama Mama Jama or something is going to flood the market and WA will see its revenue crater. Then people will wonder what happened to their industry and never blame themselves.
our state is already half farmland dude
and even then, if they can grow it cheaper in AL having less regulation isn't going to stop them
as it is now if you're selling weed in the state it needs to be grown in the state
Empty farmland... empty...
well emptying. The farms are dying. The orchards are becoming vineyards.
global warming?
as a stereotypical western washingtoner I don't actually know shit about what's happening across the mountains
Nah the area could become an agricultural powerhouse. Just the margins are so low, the regs were growing and getting expensive and the importing of goods was eating into the industry.
you had a cashless society and all transactions are tracked centrally by the government so at point of sale it determines your rate based on your current spend for the year
but uh... people tend to not like the idea of the government tracking all transactions
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
+2
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
edited May 2017
Yo tldr r > g you might as well try to go unwind entropy
Shark I usually see a progressive consumption tax proposed by libertarians who accept taxes must exist, not liberals. Wasn't that Rand Paul's platform?
maybe it's the wheelhouse of libertarians now idk im just going off memory from like, 5-10 years ago reading random policy articles back when i was really interested in econ/tax policy stuffs
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Sin taxes never bother me but I hardly drink, never smoked anything and so FUCK EVERYONE ELSE MA TAXES!
You know we could just all share the burden and increase the overal sales tax but even leftists run for the hills when it hits their pocket book :P
Eh spreading it to general sales tax fucks more people than just people who want to drink or smoke. Like if we're being real we should go with an income tax, but as it stands I'm fine with sin taxes more so than general sales tax increases.
What do you mean fucks over more people? You mean makes more people share the burden of funding the state?
Sales tax levels the working poor. It's already super high if not the highest in the nation.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Basically rural US, including Eastern WA and such are basically emptied of young folks and the old folks are dying and there isn't really any reason to go back to those places.
I guess really taxes on alcohol should be high to discourage alcohol consumption and low on weed to encourage weed consumption considering alcohol is much more dangerous and harmful than weed
I think all sales taxes are dumb, at least on anything that costs less than like, a car
I don't agree that they, or the various regulations that exist, are killing the weed industry tho
i thought last time i researched it most liberal economists preferred (progressive) sales taxes to other taxes like income tax
Really? Like, the amount taxed increases as the price of the good or service increases? That seems really hard to sell to people even if they get to keep their entire income.
I think it's like VAT refunds where you get the money back later, enabling a system like income tax where you don't have to pay the first twenty grand or whatever?
That is FairTax, which is not exactly a progressive system. If you're taxing people at the consumption level, it's gonna be at least somewhat regressive pretty much no matter what you do, and stuff like the prebate only mitigates it to an extent.
Just do a progressive income tax!
no it's not
here i'll just look up an article instead of trying to explain
And honestly, our tax system isn't that bad. Could it be better? You bet your sweet ass it could, but with turbo-tax and other programs available for free, it's reasonably progressive.
We should have a higher estate tax. That would help, we should legalize MJ and tax the shit out of it. I'm even for some import taxes, and charging an outsourcing tax based on percentage of employees out of the country.
I think all sales taxes are dumb, at least on anything that costs less than like, a car
I don't agree that they, or the various regulations that exist, are killing the weed industry tho
i thought last time i researched it most liberal economists preferred (progressive) sales taxes to other taxes like income tax
Really? Like, the amount taxed increases as the price of the good or service increases? That seems really hard to sell to people even if they get to keep their entire income.
I think it's like VAT refunds where you get the money back later, enabling a system like income tax where you don't have to pay the first twenty grand or whatever?
That is FairTax, which is not exactly a progressive system. If you're taxing people at the consumption level, it's gonna be at least somewhat regressive pretty much no matter what you do, and stuff like the prebate only mitigates it to an extent.
Just do a progressive income tax!
no it's not
here i'll just look up an article instead of trying to explain
I mean the guy's from a conservative institute so I am not sure if this makes your point it's a liberal taxation scheme.
The issue with the tax as proposed is either that it requires an extremely high tax rate with a rebate, which still hurts the poor, or requires massive effort into determining your consumption rate and has pretty wonky revenue streams; his proposal appears to be the latter. The latter doesn't really screw over people who are worse off as much as a rebate but it seems really, really impractical implementation-wise.
there's an argument for sin taxes beyond just revenue extraction - reducing consumption of the vice
so replacing sin taxes with a broader sales tax wouldn't have exactly the same effect
alright so what we're saying is that we need to make taxes really low on legal weed temporarily, wait until all the black market weed is snuffed out and everyone is buying it legally, then slowly start raising taxes on weed like you're slowly raising the temp of a pot of water with a frog
Except in this analogy the frog is, like really baked, man
I have no problem with sin taxes on certain goods that are used in accordance with the overall increased cost of care and such the action involved puts on the public structures.
Go ahead and do your thing, just realize you will pay the real cost including the cost based on you risk at use of additional resources.
I think that should be a tertiary consideration at best. Maybe quaternary.
as a prime motivation it goes against the basic idea. You paying the real cost, that is. On a very limited scale, yeah. But limited.
the primary motivation: limiting the damage something does directly. High taxes on alcohol and tobacco limit the amount of people killed by alcohol or tobacco.
secondary motivation: socioeconomic costs. Indirect damages. People dying from alcohol and tobacco, and other problems alcohol and tobacco brings, impact others in their lives. From relatives on disability in perpetuity to a drunk wrecking someone's shit.
tertiary motivation: making the producers of these things bear some of the cost to society at large of their products
quaternary motivation, possibly better classified as an unfortunate side effect: users of these things bearing the cost.
Actually yeah I'm leaning towards unfortunate effect. The ideal sin tax would be one that disincentives but at the same time magically did not negatively affect someone.
0
Captain Ultralow resolution pictures of birdsRegistered Userregular
Sin taxes never bother me but I hardly drink, never smoked anything and so FUCK EVERYONE ELSE MA TAXES!
You know we could just all share the burden and increase the overal sales tax but even leftists run for the hills when it hits their pocket book :P
Eh spreading it to general sales tax fucks more people than just people who want to drink or smoke. Like if we're being real we should go with an income tax, but as it stands I'm fine with sin taxes more so than general sales tax increases.
What do you mean fucks over more people? You mean makes more people share the burden of funding the state?
Sales taxes are regressive. Sin taxes are equally or more regressive, but at least allow people to opt out by not doing an unhealthy activity. Regressive taxation fucks people over.
Most european liberal paradises have a lot regressive taxes, but have progressive programs to make up for it.
alright so what we're saying is that we need to make taxes really low on legal weed temporarily, wait until all the black market weed is snuffed out and everyone is buying it legally, then slowly start raising taxes on weed like you're slowly raising the temp of a pot of water with a frog
Except in this analogy the frog is, like really baked, man
Sin taxes never bother me but I hardly drink, never smoked anything and so FUCK EVERYONE ELSE MA TAXES!
You know we could just all share the burden and increase the overal sales tax but even leftists run for the hills when it hits their pocket book :P
Eh spreading it to general sales tax fucks more people than just people who want to drink or smoke. Like if we're being real we should go with an income tax, but as it stands I'm fine with sin taxes more so than general sales tax increases.
What do you mean fucks over more people? You mean makes more people share the burden of funding the state?
Sales tax levels the working poor. It's already super high if not the highest in the nation.
Yeah I got where you were going after you posted it. Our sin taxes go into the general fund though so they are not very defendable.
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Actually i think this is the article i remember. The Economist is neoliberal ofc but it's talking about policy supported by a economists across a wide range of ideologies
Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people.
Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Posts
What do you mean fucks over more people? You mean makes more people share the burden of funding the state?
I saw a pittsburgh commercial for their lotto that had me feel really bad for people who live in pittsburgh, well more than normal.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The biggest probelm with Sin taxes is when they become assumed revenue streams for states. You end up with a double edged sword where you encourage peole ot stop doing things like smoking but need people to smoke to keep the lights on.
no it's not
here i'll just look up an article instead of trying to explain
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/23/what-should-tax-reform-in-the-united-states-do/replace-the-income-tax-with-a-progressive-consumption-tax
Interesting. I don't know anything about economics so I can't really evaluate that, but it seems weird for a capitalist system to directly tax consumption. Maybe that's a result of the lingering idea of tax as disincentive though. It's not like people will stop consuming
the thing is, this isn't a new industry
it's a black market economy that's been slowly coming out of the shadows
as someone who occasionally partakes, i would prefer some pretty good regulation to control for quality/potency (particularly around things like edibles and oils)
i also fail to see how everyone rushing to grow weed wouldn't drive the price down, which affects profits
Sales taxes are regressive. Sin taxes are equally or more regressive, but at least allow people to opt out by not doing an unhealthy activity. Regressive taxation fucks people over.
Nah the area could become an agricultural powerhouse. Just the margins are so low, the regs were growing and getting expensive and the importing of goods was eating into the industry.
On a grossly basic front.
you had a cashless society and all transactions are tracked centrally by the government so at point of sale it determines your rate based on your current spend for the year
but uh... people tend to not like the idea of the government tracking all transactions
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
fyi hth go read Piketty
i am not going to lie for whatever reason i could not beat the QTE bosses
like it would take me 10 tries at least
i am the worst at qtes
What, you want to switch us to a marijuana backed currency?
You shall not crucify mankind on a cross of weed!
maybe it's the wheelhouse of libertarians now idk im just going off memory from like, 5-10 years ago reading random policy articles back when i was really interested in econ/tax policy stuffs
This is because QTEs are garbage and you are a man of discernment
Sales tax levels the working poor. It's already super high if not the highest in the nation.
pleasepaypreacher.net
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/the-graying-of-rural-america/485159/
Basically rural US, including Eastern WA and such are basically emptied of young folks and the old folks are dying and there isn't really any reason to go back to those places.
you had me then you lost me at the end there
i saw the news about income yeah. not sure about sales.
but your a qtepie
wink winky
shaggy ear pupperdog
wait what do you mean the dog isnt you
And honestly, our tax system isn't that bad. Could it be better? You bet your sweet ass it could, but with turbo-tax and other programs available for free, it's reasonably progressive.
We should have a higher estate tax. That would help, we should legalize MJ and tax the shit out of it. I'm even for some import taxes, and charging an outsourcing tax based on percentage of employees out of the country.
I mean the guy's from a conservative institute so I am not sure if this makes your point it's a liberal taxation scheme.
The issue with the tax as proposed is either that it requires an extremely high tax rate with a rebate, which still hurts the poor, or requires massive effort into determining your consumption rate and has pretty wonky revenue streams; his proposal appears to be the latter. The latter doesn't really screw over people who are worse off as much as a rebate but it seems really, really impractical implementation-wise.
so replacing sin taxes with a broader sales tax wouldn't have exactly the same effect
Everything costs 15% more than it actually does. Fuck you! Make companies include that in the price if you're going to implement that tax!
Rest In Peace Pepe ;_;
I think that should be a tertiary consideration at best. Maybe quaternary.
as a prime motivation it goes against the basic idea. You paying the real cost, that is. On a very limited scale, yeah. But limited.
the primary motivation: limiting the damage something does directly. High taxes on alcohol and tobacco limit the amount of people killed by alcohol or tobacco.
secondary motivation: socioeconomic costs. Indirect damages. People dying from alcohol and tobacco, and other problems alcohol and tobacco brings, impact others in their lives. From relatives on disability in perpetuity to a drunk wrecking someone's shit.
tertiary motivation: making the producers of these things bear some of the cost to society at large of their products
quaternary motivation, possibly better classified as an unfortunate side effect: users of these things bearing the cost.
Actually yeah I'm leaning towards unfortunate effect. The ideal sin tax would be one that disincentives but at the same time magically did not negatively affect someone.
Most european liberal paradises have a lot regressive taxes, but have progressive programs to make up for it.
or em
stay with me
it could also be that taxes are theft
go do something else then unless it's a date
"Just $19.99 + tax!"
but who bakes a pot of water to make it boil?
y'all are high
Yeah I got where you were going after you posted it. Our sin taxes go into the general fund though so they are not very defendable.
or on time
or reasonably late
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/tax-policy