Another interesting new Democratic tax initiative

[fintstone]

i know the liberals have never met a communist, terrorist, or tax they did not likie...but this is ridiculous:

Pay as you go: Florida lawmaker seeks to tax toilet paper

By DAVID ROYSE
Associated Press Writer

March 10, 2005, 6:15 PM EST

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Florida's Legislature is flush with good ideas.

Sen. Al Lawson's involves a 2 cent-per-roll tax on toilet paper to pay for wastewater treatment and help small towns upgrade their sewer systems.

The Democratic lawmaker's pay-as-you-go bill has been the source of many jokes -- bathroom humor you might say -- but he says the issue is a serious one, especially in some of the fast-growing Panhandle coastal counties in his district.

``They're experiencing a tremendous boom in growth and they're not able to accommodate the growth,'' Lawson said.

``We've got 17 million people in this state and all of them can contribute to protecting our underground water supply.''

In a Republican-dominated Legislature that doesn't like new taxes, the idea is likely to pretty quickly end up in the tank.

Senate President Tom Lee, R-Brandon, said he didn't think it would get too far, but didn't rule it out.

``We'll be getting to the bottom of it real soon,'' Lee said.

The House is skeptical as well.

``We're not wild about tax increases,'' said House Speaker Allan Bense, R-Panama City. ``But we'll certainly let it go through the system.''

If it were to pass, the extra two pennies would start being charged in October. Lawson said it could generate $50 million a year.

It would also need approval from Gov. Jeb Bush. He said that if toilet paper is taxed, people might use less of it.

``That's not necessarily a good thing,'' noted the governor.

And what about consumers? Wouldn't they be squeezed by a tax on the Charmin? No, says Lawson.

``Two cents is not going to hurt families at all,'' he said. ``This is one thing people don't mind paying for.''

[350HP930]

I thought you right wingers were arguing FOR use taxes in another thread on the OT?

[Hugh R]

Here in Cali, we pay water use taxes. The more you flush, the more you pay.

[350HP930]

Many rural areas in florida have people using well water and septic tanks.

I could see how if small towns want to expand their water and sewer systems it would be a reasonable way to get money out of potential users.

[on-ramp]

what about the proposed "Fat Tax"? oops,. sorry , that's another thread.

[speeder]

Just curious, Fintstone, but how would you propose funding shared-use infrastructure in the U.S. such as roads, sewers, schools, bridges, etc..?

This is an honest question, BTW.

And since you accuse liberals of high taxes(?), my bonus question is how do you propose paying for all of the deficit (borrowing) spending to finance the current Iraqi occupation? It's causing the decline of the U.S. dollar in the world right now, if you were not aware. Thanks for your time.

[5axis]

You are making a assumption that devaluation is a bad thing. For my particular line of work devaluation has been a good thing and this applies to many other parts of the domestic economy as well. My feeling is that the Europeans are the most hosed by us letting our currency drop. I can't get those years of econ out of my head.

[350HP930]

Yup, the only thing that keeps the rest of the world from treating the US like the pariah state it has become is the fact that most of their economies are very dependant upon US trade.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of beemers and porsches are destined for the US market.

[speeder]

Originally posted by 5axis
You are making a assumption that devaluation is a bad thing. For my particular line of work devaluation has been a good thing and this applies to many other parts of the domestic economy as well. My feeling is that the Europeans are the most hosed by us letting our currency drop. I can't get those years of econ out of my head.

So huge, out of control deficits and a devalued dollar is a good thing, because it benefits you and others in the export business? HTF did we ever survive when the dollar was strong? (And our economy as well).

I have news for you, any set of circumstances, no matter how disasterous, will benefit somebody. The body bag and artificial limb business in Iraq comes to mind.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by 350HP930
Many rural areas in florida have people using well water and septic tanks.

I could see how if small towns want to expand their water and sewer systems it would be a reasonable way to get money out of potential users.

Here in Washington I understand there has been or soon will be a bill introduced to install water meters on private wells. The intent is to tax water use for those not buying from a water district. So now we have the state looking to tax something for which they provide absolutley nothing in return; no services, regulation, oversight, nothing. A permit is already required just to dig the darn thing; now they want to tax what comes out of it. Brought to us by our wonderful Democratic Governor of King County and her Democratic stooges in the House and Senate. I sure hope she doesn't see what is happening in Florida and winds up getting any fancy ideas from it. I guess it would be fitting, though, if Washingtonians were ultimately reminded of her every time they wipe their arses...

[CamB]

If the water in the well comes from a source which needs regulation (I dunno - some kind of subterranean water table), I can see a point. I'm guessing that in Washington, that isn't a problem... so yeah, it is retarded.

The tp tax is even worse. It is just a way of weaseling around a property tax increase (presumably). Mind you - it should be prefered by Republicans to an increase in property taxes (it does, after all, benefit wealthy people with high property taxes and fewer occupants per house. Actually, do republican's crap less than democrats - because they are pretty uptight ).

[350HP930]

Here in florida the aquifer is public resource managed by several different water management districts. You can't sink a well here without proper permitting, fees and testing so taxing it wouldn't be that hard for our state.

Do you believe that people should be able to use a limited public resource for free?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by speeder
Just curious, Fintstone, but how would you propose funding shared-use infrastructure in the U.S. such as roads, sewers, schools, bridges, etc..?

This is an honest question, BTW.

And since you accuse liberals of high taxes(?), my bonus question is how do you propose paying for all of the deficit (borrowing) spending to finance the current Iraqi occupation? It's causing the decline of the U.S. dollar in the world right now, if you were not aware. Thanks for your time.

I have no problem with the gvt setting up ways to pay for services through usage tax...for example, paying a toll for using a road is a simple way...as long as you don't use the revenue from that specific road to fund others.

Actually, the proper way to pay for the wastewater treament improvements for small towns...would be to for the small towns to pay them..not everyone in the state who may have already paid the bill for their own watewater plants. It is even worse downright dishonest) that they are trying to hide the tax....in the price of toilet paper....instead of asking for the money outright for each specific project.

As far as paying for the military, that was one of the few things that federal funds go for that the founding fathers actually expected to be a responsibility of government.

[tabs]

I'm dead set against any toilette tissue tax....you all know how much I eat at those buffets...it's all gota come out somtime!

And that little pay for road use idea is moving along quiet nicely thank you...there are now 2 European auto manufactureres who have signed up to have those little black boxes installed at the factory....

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by 350HP930
Here in florida the aquifer is public resource managed by several different water management districts. You can't sink a well here without proper permitting, fees and testing so taxing it wouldn't be that hard for our state.

Do you believe that people should be able to use a limited public resource for free?

No, they should not be able to use a limited public resource for free. Using a well to extract the water from the water table beneath their property, at least here in Washington, does not extract from a public resource. Our public water supplies are in the form of large resiviors that are well behind our needs capacity wise. Washington has not increased capacity in the form of any new ones since the late '50's to early '60's (thanks once again to over-the-top envrironmental regulations brought to us by guess who). So really, in the end, the folks using well water are helping the rest of us out by relieving the burden on the public water supplies. But, darn it, that's just not enough when there is a tax opportunity that has not yey been exploited...

[bryanthompson]

Easy way to protest this one... go to your local state capital and steal all of their TP. They'll get the idea

[rcecale]

Originally posted by speeder
Just curious, Fintstone, but how would you propose funding shared-use infrastructure in the U.S. such as roads, sewers, schools, bridges, etc..?

Denis,

Back in '92 I bought a house in the up-and-coming city of Rancho Santa Margarita, CA. (Right nextdoor to Mission Viejo). Back then California had the Mello-Roos tax, which was levied against homeowners in newly developed areas to pay for the building of new infrastructure items...streetlights, road maintenance, etc.

Technically, these taxes were to be rolled back as the cities came on-line when enough taxpaying citizens moved into the area and enough monies were generated to do away with the Mello-Roos for that particular area. I'm not sure that ever happened though, because 4 years after I bought the house, I sold it to move to Japan.

While I certainly wasn't happy to be paying this extra tax, it did make a lot of sense. why should someone in Mission Viejo (Or any other nearby city) have to pay for streetlights and such on MY street? Perhapes this is a better idea for the folks in Florida, than to tax EVERYONE.

Randy

[john70t]

One doesn't have to wipe with TP. Who says it's a right anyways? Treebark, chihuahuas, or newspapers(I can think of a few) should work just as well.
Or buy a bidet like the Frenchies It's a free market society right?
(edit: mabye just get singles, I mean republican toiletpaper, the next time your at the bank)

[K.B.]

I'll start on marketing an new product.

Kleen-x on a roll.

I'll probably have to include a warning label like
"Caution: This product is intended for use on your nose. Use in other areas is strictly forbidden by law. Violators will be fined and will need to take their a$$es to jail.

KB

[Superman]

This story is probably a very good one for purposes of the discussions we have. Or should have. First, the traditional slap on the face: Republicans hate government, don't want to run government except to tear it down, and don't know how to run government except to try to get rid of it. Then they call people traitors who want to repair the damage they have inflicted. For this reason, that political party gets all of my opposition.

Stuff costs money, and pretending this is not true just helps throw a monkey wrench into the government machinery. Again, this is deliberate and calculated. Fact is, when communities grow quickly, infrastructure needs to be built to accommodate that growth, before the growth itself results in sufficient property taxes to pay for the infrastructure growth. This is a common and classic public policy problem to solve. Republicans either don't understand this (unlikely), or they pretend it's just not true for politica and economic gain (bingo). Roads, street lights, wastewater treatment, power, water, police, fire....all these things are costs that developers do not have to pay, and costs they leave behind for you and me. We have to pay for this up front, in a way, and then hope to recover those costs later. Regardless of how you collect the money. This will continue until developers are made to include those costs in the cost of developments. But then, this is the "gubmint over-regulation...permitting....impact fees" yadda yadda that conservatives love to hate. Brute fact, necessary expense, but still something that conservatives like to pretend is the fault of liberals. Developers are getting away with building and selling properties at below their "real" costs, and libs get the blame. Perfect, if you love money more than all else, and are comfortable taking it when it's really coming out of your fellow citizens' pockets.

TP tax is a "use" tax. Either you are alert enough to understand that these costs are indeed incurred, and use taxes make some good sense, or you don't. Here, critics are very obviously just cretins tossing beer cans at the screen shouting anti-gubmint slogans. If you don't believe in use taxes like this one, then suggest something else. If you believe that growth does not require the government (or better yet, the developers) to include infrastructure to support this growth, then get a book and read it. Pretending this is not true shows ignorance.

I suspect that the tax on well volumes is probably for the purpose of wastewater treatment. This expensive, and the expense is driven by water volume. Waste water could be treated much less expensively if the waster water reaching the treatment plant were more concentrated. Fact is, water entering for treatment is HUGE VOLUME stuff, with only the occasional turd. What really makes sense is to have two waste water systems. One for grey water, one for the stuff with lots of bacteria, if you know what I mean.

The Seattle Metro plant called "Westwater" was hugely expensive. Next is the "Brightwater" facility being planned for Snohomish county, which will treat both Snohomish and King County water. It will also be hugely expensive. Just so you know, Jeff. Brightwater construction will begin soon. Again, Jeff, I think the tax you're railing against is probably for the purpose of handling the treatement of that well water after it leaves the drain. Democrats do not create these expenses. But they are honest about the fact that these expenses are incurred. So, they make nice targets for blame, when people wish to place blame rather than accept facts.

And I'd agree that the TP tax is probably a conservative plot to make ordinary folks pay for WWTP construction, rather than rich folks. If property taxes are used, rich people share the greater burden since they own the spendy property. Now, before you guys point out that this bill's sponsor is a Democrat, please be aware there are no actual Democrats in the South. There are two flavors of Republicans. It's just that one flavor has the job of actually running the government, and the other flavor is the traditional Republican who is busy destroying it.

And in the meantime, the biggest spender in American poltical history, combined with the popular lie that government should be free of cost to citizens, is creating a crisis in oru short term future. It's going to get really painful, folks. Even if you're among the folks who have been tricked into believing that gubmint does not need tax money. Because that's not the truth, and this lie has a limited lifespan. When it comes time to actually solve the problems, you'll see citizens call upon the Democrats to get that job done. Because they know how. And then you'll have more reason to hate them. For fixing the problems, I guess.