What would YOU tax?

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

You are a part of the legislature of a large well-populated state with a few small towns and one big vibrant city. Due to excessive borrowing by previous administrations, and due to a poor economy, you're having an awful time balancing the state budget. You already cut hundreds of thousands of dollars from transportation, education and other expenses, but the budget is still short. Cutting more spening is not an option. You need to raise taxes. The two taxes that you have the best chance of passing are:

• A tax on sugary beverages, that is a sin-tax for unhealthy sodas. Progressive do-gooders think it will help the population get more healthy while bringing in much needed revenue. A loud lobby keeps saying it is regressive and that it will hurt the poor. They have purchased numerous TV spots.
• A tax on all clothing purchases that are LESS THAN $110. This tax used to exist and was repealed, much to the delight of the locally based  but not politically powerful garment industry (your state has a big garment industry consisting of thousands of small businesses) Progressives say it is regressive since modest clothing purchases are something all poor families must make, especially those with growing kids.

Ok, which tax would you pick? Why? Come below the cut to find out what the NYS legislator picked.

Faced with heavy lobbying from the soda industry (Big Sugar? LOL?) the wise men in Albany have decided to tax CLOTHING purchases that are less that $110 since a soda tax is "regressive" and would "hurt the poor" (clothing purchases over $110 were already taxed) --But, I guess poor people don't wear clothing. I don't even know anymore. The truth is the sugared drink industry has better and more numerous lobbyists than the garment industry. That's all that matters. Nothing to see here people.

Comments

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Faulty setup because I would vote for neither tax recognizing that increasing taxes during a down economy is not likely to generate significant additional revenues.

I would definitely not vote for either of these taxes even if somehow these were the only two on the table but rather if it was absolutely necessary look to impose a flat across the board tax that impacted everyone equally and was very difficult (preferably impossible) to avoid.

I would also point out that both of those taxes are horribly regressive in nature, poor people drink more soda and other sugary beverages because they cannot afford actually healthy juice drinks, even milk in many places is more expensive than Soda.

Oh one final note, the Soda lobby would be properly labled one wing of Big Corn since none of the large Soda manufacturers actually use Sugar in their product.

That said, IF my state had any kind of Corn Subsidy I would eliminate that long before I taxed the soda to balance the budget.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

*cough drink WATER cough*

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Screw the lobby - I would tax sugary beverages, with an expiration date so that once the crisis is over, the tax can expire.

[404.livejournal.com]

The crisis will never be over, hence the tax will never end.

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

I'd choose whichever option gets me the most in kickbacks, because I'm a selfish asshole.

I guess it's back to running out-of-state to buy clothing for us.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

So stupid since there are so many great options here in the city.

[kenderkin.livejournal.com]

Online shopping will win out on things like this. That's what happened when California upped our Sales Tax to almost 10%.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

They also passed an online recapture tax. I don't think it will win.

[someidiot.livejournal.com]

I would tax the unhealthy sodas. I'm not depriving anyone of a necessity like I would be with the clothing tax.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Well, that tears it -- I have to commute to NJ anyway so all of my kids' clothes are being bought at the Jersey City Target.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Oh, and p.s.

I've lived in 7 different states and have never seen a legislative body more useless than the New York State Senate.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Thank you. So it's NOT just me.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I'd cut non-productive state spending. Eliminate pesky state workers who pretty much are nothing but jobs programs and PR.

[404.livejournal.com]

I'd fire all those teachers that sit in padded rooms all day while still collecting a paycheck because they are a menace to children but won't be fired because the union would have kittens over it.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

You will need to break the teacher's union contact to do that. There are a LOT of people who want to do that (I'm one of them) but it is harder than you'd think.

And, you know how much money it's worth? Not enough to make a dent.

But go for it. Just do let the legal costs outstrip the savings.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

If I were a Republican, I wouldn't have to pick one. My voting button would automatically be set for "no".

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

LMAO. They are so sad pouty and predictable aren't they? (not one voted yes on the budget)

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Cutting more spening is not an option.

I think that is simply not true. Cutting more spending is always an option. It is just an option Democratic politicians want to consider since it would mean going against some of their major contributors. It also doesn't feel as good as being a nanny to an entire state and getting them to "be more healthy." GOP politicians aren't much better, especially in NY, so this isn't a default partisan issue.

My advice?

1.) Elect the clone of Chris Christie. Prepare for pain.

or

2.) Keep raising taxes and watching the money get frittered away to various interests. Wait for the state economy to collapse.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

2: AIEEEE SLIPPURY SLOAP

[tridus.livejournal.com]

I'd actually pick the clothing one. That's obviously intended to be the wrong answer from the way the post is worded, but I'm very much not a fan of politicians creating an arbitrary number underneath which it's acceptable for people to buy clothes, and over which it's considered something worthy of taxing.

Markets need consistency to function properly. If you're going to tax something, tax it. Don't tax it only above some arbitrary "only rich people buy $111 suit jackets" limit.

(Not that I have any particular problem with taxing pop either, but they'd probably just blow that money on something stupid instead of useful long-term things like debt reduction.)

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

I disagree, on the grounds that clothing is a necessity, while expensive clothing is more of a luxury.

That's a darn fine pie, hopefully a do-gooder won't tax it

[404.livejournal.com]

[majortom-thecat.livejournal.com]

Would second-hand clothing be exempt? That's all I buy.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

I was thinking about the same thing. It's most of what I buy.

As far as I can tell yes we pay it too if we shop at a for-profit place. The "resale" market has fuzzy borders. I could see places trying to seem like they sell "used" to avoid the tax.

What I also don't know is if charitable institutions need to collect sales tax... I'll look in to that now.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

1. Raising taxes is no cure for over-spending.
2. There are plenty of things that could be cut from the budget.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Cutting more spening is not an option. You need to raise taxes.

As many above have said, this is never true. Cutting more spending is always an option - it's just not an option that people might like.

I'd vote no on both of these based on that principle alone.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

and here we have the republican mindst kiddies
it's almost like they all have the same talking points

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

Wont taxing clothing hurt the poor more? What kind of logic is this? Do they think they'll get more revenue if they tax cloths vs. soda pop?

Will this affect second hand stores?I buy ALL my part time job cloths at a second hand store. Hrmm bad stuff.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Do they think they'll get more revenue if they tax cloths vs. soda pop?

No. The revenue is about the same.


Will this affect second hand stores?

If they are for-profit run yes. It will not effect 501c3's since they pay no sales tax.

[cory-nickolatos.livejournal.com]

I'd argue the statement that cutting is always an option. The school districts in California are now suing the state because they've failed in their constitutional obligation to support public schools... And they'll probably win.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

???

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/wp-content/uploads/Coulson-Cato-PS-Cost-Scores-2010-s.jpg


Why no, it's at all possible that there is room for cuts in education spending.

[redheadrat.livejournal.com]

How about not taxing anything, or setting a universal services tax? Instead increase and/or institute fees for state services and for the people who cannot afford them, create a system that helps with those fees.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

They weren't. But these were the two under consideration.
They decided not to institute a tax on the richest of the richest, sadly.

[uberarcanist.livejournal.com]

Owww...bad call. Like you have to drink soda to live or anything.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Spelling nazi: It's legislature, not legislator.

Cutting more spending is always an option. Also, I'm sure there's something else that could be increased in fees, like sewer rates or trash service, etc.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Well technically Sewer Rates and Trash Service are unlikely to be controlled by the State, those are typically local/county functions but yeah there is SOMETHING that can be raised to cover the gap, vehicle registration, license fee's, something.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty much against such targeted taxes. The government should avoid trying to determine if the right level to tax clothes is $110 or $50. Same with trying to determine what drinks are unhealthy enough to qualify for a sin tax.

How about getting rid of all exemptions and just implementing either a VAT or sales tax with no exceptions. This would of course mean a less work for lobbyists and fewer bribes/campaign contributions for politicians, so it's a crazy idea, but I can dream. There are of course some exceptions that do some good, but on balance, we'd be better off without all of them.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

soda tax, w/o doubt

I, in my activist ways, even worked towards getting it passed.
I'm sad to see it failed, but clothing was taxed instead.

But hey, least we have a budget now?

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's going to hold. Not after what happened with the last "budget" --

The beverage tax

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

As another respondent pointed out, sweet soft drinks are more of a luxury than a necessity. Diet researchers debit these drinks as one of the key sources of obesity. These are unhealthy products that cause damage to those who use them to excess.