Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This. Food should never ever be taxed in my opinion.
Yes and no. Flat tax on everything. Tax rebates for lower income people for things like food, energy, utilities, clothing etc. The amount of the tax rebate would be variable based on income up too X where you get nothing.
How does the govt taking more money from people "help the environment"?
Taking more money from people --> reducing discretionary income --> reducing economic activity --> reducing energy consumption --> reducing carbon emissions. (A reductionist argument.)
Meat production uses up a lot of natural resources, like water (The Water Education Foundation calculates that every pound of beef requires about 2,464 gallons of water to produce) and arable land that is devoted to growing feed instead of directly feeding people, while contributing to the depletion of the rain forests and adding huge amounts of greenhouse gasses to the environment. We're going to pay for this voracious appetite for meat in many ways down the road. Slowing consumption is a step in the right direction.
Yes and no. Flat tax on everything. Tax rebates for lower income people for things like food, energy, utilities, clothing etc. The amount of the tax rebate would be variable based on income up too X where you get nothing.
Tell me that's not equitable and fair.
I've told people repeatedly its not. I am familiar with the flat tax, and rebate system. Once you really get into it the end result looks a LOT like a progressive system.
Taxation of food is wrong. Trying to turn a completely unrelated topic into a discussion of flat tax is fascinating. And all too often the flat tax discussion? Ignores fees, state taxes, social security, etc. ask yourself why it only focuses on federal taxation, and on values that would be too low to actually pay for our government and you can get to the root source of where the idea comes from. But again...that deserves its own topic.
Yes and no. Flat tax on everything. Tax rebates for lower income people for things like food, energy, utilities, clothing etc. The amount of the tax rebate would be variable based on income up too X where you get nothing.
Tell me that's not equitable and fair.
To the extent that renters are more likely than homeowners to live in energy inefficient housing, renters are less able than homeowners to make their housing energy efficient, and renters have lower incomes than homeowners (median renter income is 50% of median homeowner income), that's not equitable and fair.
Yes and no. Flat tax on everything. Tax rebates for lower income people for things like food, energy, utilities, clothing etc. The amount of the tax rebate would be variable based on income up too X where you get nothing.
Tell me that's not equitable and fair.
Immoral taxes are still immoral. A tax on food is immoral.
Meat production uses up a lot of natural resources, like water (The Water Education Foundation calculates that every pound of beef requires about 2,464 gallons of water to produce) and arable land that is devoted to growing feed instead of directly feeding people, while contributing to the depletion of the rain forests and adding huge amounts of greenhouse gasses to the environment. We're going to pay for this voracious appetite for meat in many ways down the road. Slowing consumption is a step in the right direction.
Because obviously, growing vegetables doesn't use up water.
Meat production uses up a lot of natural resources, like water (The Water Education Foundation calculates that every pound of beef requires about 2,464 gallons of water to produce) and arable land that is devoted to growing feed instead of directly feeding people, while contributing to the depletion of the rain forests and adding huge amounts of greenhouse gasses to the environment. We're going to pay for this voracious appetite for meat in many ways down the road. Slowing consumption is a step in the right direction.
Where does the water go? Surely it does not vanish into thin air, since evaporated water returns to earth.
I could see taxing chips (Not crackers/rice cakes), soda (Outside of seltzer/sparkling water), cigarettes, beer/wine, alcohol, and cookies. I mean maybe meat over $50 I could see being taxed.
I think with those snack taxes money cab be used to promote agriculture within the state/lower cost of veggies/help ensure students receive free nutritious meals in school.
Tax on cigarettes/alcohol/liquor/beer funds Mental Health, Social Service's, and Substance programs.
Such as car and toll taxes fund infrastructure.
Car and property taxes fund the town/state
Income tax should only be on the federal level
Stats can receive additional tax money from sales tax. Except no sales tax on groceries or health related product's.
Saw an interesting article. It talked about putting a tax on meat that would be used to help the environment. They gave examples of the money collected could use for clean drinking water or help preserve park's. Think it is a good idea...thought's?
There should never be a tax on food!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
