finknottle Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Kudo's to the Obama administration for sticking to it's guns on taxation. He promised that taxes on households earning less than $250,000 would not go up to pay for his programs, and he's stuck with it so far. Yippee, the rich will pay for everything! And as we all know, nobody smokes - nobody in sophisticated Democratic circles, anyway. The tobacco tax only effects those cigar-puffing Republican bankers. Now congress is considering new ways to hit the country-club set where it really hurts: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html Good thing working class Americans only drink spring water! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 But this is good for us that Motherment® is looking out for us Motherment is providing health care from the cigarette tax. If more people quit smoking, that's good right? So what if the revenue to pay for the new program dries up. We'll just print more Now motherment is looking out for our well being by wanting to tax those nasty sugary drinks. Notice the line...It would not include most diet beverages....Those diet beverages must be good for us if Motherment® says they're not bad So now people will stop drinking those nasty sugary drinks and switch to diet beverages. Meanwhile the revenue stream from those nasty sugary beverages dries up. So we'll just print more money And then in 10-20 years, after everyone has been drinking diet beverages we'll be able to reap the benefits of massive class action lawsuits arguing that the Aspartame is responsible for increasing Cancer rates It's win-win baby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Why not just expand it to all fast food restaurants as well. Why limit it to sodas, when you can hit McDonalds as well. Hell, why not just say "any food that gets more than X% calories from fat and sugar gets a 10% 'Unhealthful Tax' levied against it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 In all fairness, the tax on $250,000 earners has been rebranded as the tax on $235,000 earners. Keep up with the change you can believe in.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 ZZZZZ! Did I somehow manage to miss the first part? ZZZZZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Holy !@#$??!! " The real Housewifes of NYC " on Bravo. I really need to keep the remote away from the wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Do I still get to write off the $20 bills I use to light my Montecristos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Why not just expand it to all fast food restaurants as well. Why limit it to sodas, when you can hit McDonalds as well. Hell, why not just say "any food that gets more than X% calories from fat and sugar gets a 10% 'Unhealthful Tax' levied against it." I agree. Tax the fatties! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Do I still get to write off the $20 bills I use to light my Montecristos? Why the phuck would you burn a perfectly good sandwich! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 In all fairness, the tax on $250,000 earners has been rebranded as the tax on $235,000 earners. Keep up with the change you can believe in.... I don't get it, assume you jest. And anyway, that's households not earners. The red line for single taxpayers is about $130k I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I don't get it, assume you jest. And anyway, that's households not earners. The red line for single taxpayers is about $130k I think. Just using your language, which presumes households = married, filing jointly. Just need to keep up with the lightning speed of the administration, the millionaires' tax, which previously was thought to hit at $250,000, will now be in effect at $235,000. I guess deflation is already in full force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Just using your language, which presumes households = married, filing jointly. Just need to keep up with the lightning speed of the administration, the millionaires' tax, which previously was thought to hit at $250,000, will now be in effect at $235,000. I guess deflation is already in full force. And I'm sure public servants - senators, congresscritters, etc. - are exempt, since they're "good" millionaires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Just using your language, which presumes households = married, filing jointly. Just need to keep up with the lightning speed of the administration, the millionaires' tax, which previously was thought to hit at $250,000, will now be in effect at $235,000. I guess deflation is already in full force. At the risk of sounding petty, when that number drops to $135k per household because the current spending isn't sustainable, even after taxing cigarettes, soda and booze, I look forward to staring at the folks in that range and saying "What? It's a drop in the bucket. You can part with it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 Why not just expand it to all fast food restaurants as well. Why limit it to sodas, when you can hit McDonalds as well. Hell, why not just say "any food that gets more than X% calories from fat and sugar gets a 10% 'Unhealthful Tax' levied against it." But wouldn't we then have to raise food stamps and welfare again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 But wouldn't we then have to raise food stamps and welfare again? Only because those evil corporate fat-cats keep unfairly raising prices when they're taxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Cigarette smokers are a burden on our system, so they should pay more.... Soda drinkers are a burden on our health system, so they should pay more.... People who don't excercise are a burden on our health system, so they should pay more...(don't laugh, Japan is doing this)Old people are a burden on our health system... My point is where is the line drawn? You can make an arguement for just about any type of behavior/consumption adversley affecting something. Also, according to the article, the fed gov't would raise 24 billion over 4 years with the tax on soda...which is probably about 50% of the cost of fighting the inevitable lawsuits, not to mention whatever the cost of collecting/overseeing/maintaining such taxes. Soda Czar anyone? I know, let's tax people for being stupid. Anyone bring that up yet? Can I claim it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 This whole idea is retarded. The tax on smoking is retarded, but you can at least attempt to make some quasi-sensible argument that second hand smoke is dangerous to others. It's still retarded though. My ingestion of soda/fruit drinks/tea doesn't have any physical affect on anyone else. And Kev is right. Where do we draw the unhealthy taxation line? Fast food? Potato chips? Shoelaces untied? Coughing without covering your mouth? Noncompliance with mandatory weekly exercise? All of these dangerous activities are adding to our exponentially rising health care costs and need to be curbed immediately. I just read an article about flat screen TVs falling on kids and injuring them. We better tax the !@#$ out of TV's, TV stands, stupid kids and negligent parents. This kind of dangerous behavior must stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I know, let's tax people for being stupid. Anyone bring that up yet? Can I claim it? It's called Powerball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 It's called Powerball. Damn. Back to the drawing board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I know, let's tax people for being stupid. Anyone bring that up yet? Can you say "Canadian Surplus"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts