State Tax Question
06-30-2009 | 03:25 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Retired
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,527
Likes: 0
From: whale wrangler
State Tax Question
I have been noticing that whenever individual states need to raise revenue that they go after so-called sin taxes and I wonder what happens when the revenue fall's off ,how many times can they go back to the same trough ?
On another note why would they want higher mileage rates for automobiles when it would affect the income that lower mpg would bring in versus the higher mpg which would bring in less money ?
Just wonder if this has ever been brought up .
Ally
On another note why would they want higher mileage rates for automobiles when it would affect the income that lower mpg would bring in versus the higher mpg which would bring in less money ?
Just wonder if this has ever been brought up .
Ally
07-01-2009 | 05:08 AM
#2
Libertarian Resistance
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
From: 757 FO
Fair Question
I'll skip the mathematical answers except to say that static analysis tells you almost nothing about what happens next year.
Politicians have a horizon that extends all the way to the next election campaign. Sin taxes make it easy to harvest pithy campaign slogans--"John Smith fought against special interests" or "John Smith fought for our health". It gets even better when they project future sin tax revenues and spend the money on some new program (John Smith got our pets health insurance).
The bottom line is that there are consequences of the state intervening in personal decisions, consequences of experimenting with revenue, consequences of growing the state bureaucracy and the state's fiscal obligatons, etc.; and all of these consequences are secondary (if they are considered at all) to the re-election of a politico.
Stated as fact, just my opinion, you are still (for now) free to disagree.
By the way, apologies in advance to anyone named John Smith--I did not mean to imply that you were a bottom feeding parasite.
WW
Politicians have a horizon that extends all the way to the next election campaign. Sin taxes make it easy to harvest pithy campaign slogans--"John Smith fought against special interests" or "John Smith fought for our health". It gets even better when they project future sin tax revenues and spend the money on some new program (John Smith got our pets health insurance).
The bottom line is that there are consequences of the state intervening in personal decisions, consequences of experimenting with revenue, consequences of growing the state bureaucracy and the state's fiscal obligatons, etc.; and all of these consequences are secondary (if they are considered at all) to the re-election of a politico.
Stated as fact, just my opinion, you are still (for now) free to disagree.
By the way, apologies in advance to anyone named John Smith--I did not mean to imply that you were a bottom feeding parasite.
WW
07-01-2009 | 05:36 AM
#3
With The Resistance
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,191
Likes: 0
From: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
You may learn all you need to know with a quick visit to a farm. When swine get both front hooves and their snout in the trough, the food goes pretty quickly. When there is any food in the trough it can be very difficult to kick them out of the way.
07-01-2009 | 05:47 AM
#4
With The Resistance
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,191
Likes: 0
From: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
I'll skip the mathematical answers except to say that static analysis tells you almost nothing about what happens next year.
Politicians have a horizon that extends all the way to the next election campaign. Sin taxes make it easy to harvest pithy campaign slogans--"John Smith fought against special interests" or "John Smith fought for our health". It gets even better when they project future sin tax revenues and spend the money on some new program (John Smith got our pets health insurance).
The bottom line is that there are consequences of the state intervening in personal decisions, consequences of experimenting with revenue, consequences of growing the state bureaucracy and the state's fiscal obligatons, etc.; and all of these consequences are secondary (if they are considered at all) to the re-election of a politico.
Stated as fact, just my opinion, you are still (for now) free to disagree.
By the way, apologies in advance to anyone named John Smith--I did not mean to imply that you were a bottom feeding parasite.
WW
Politicians have a horizon that extends all the way to the next election campaign. Sin taxes make it easy to harvest pithy campaign slogans--"John Smith fought against special interests" or "John Smith fought for our health". It gets even better when they project future sin tax revenues and spend the money on some new program (John Smith got our pets health insurance).
The bottom line is that there are consequences of the state intervening in personal decisions, consequences of experimenting with revenue, consequences of growing the state bureaucracy and the state's fiscal obligatons, etc.; and all of these consequences are secondary (if they are considered at all) to the re-election of a politico.
Stated as fact, just my opinion, you are still (for now) free to disagree.
By the way, apologies in advance to anyone named John Smith--I did not mean to imply that you were a bottom feeding parasite.
WW
There is a prime directive at work. It doesn't have much to do with what is right. Pet healthcare is looming large.
07-05-2009 | 04:46 AM
#6
Thread Starter
Retired
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,527
Likes: 0
From: whale wrangler
For all the thing's that smokers pay for they schould be thanked instead of villified , I mean they are helping the children are they not ?
Fred
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
