Taxes...

Geesh, when times get tough, it's sure interesting to see all of these "revenue producing ideas" come out of nowhere :shakehead: For the sake of space, I decided to combine two topics into one thread instead of two.
The first is a new tax proposed by the Governor of NY to help close a $15 billion budget deficit. He proposes to add an additional 18% tax on non-diet sodas and other beverages that contain less than 70% real fruit juice. It has been dubbed the "Obesity Tax". Nevermind that diet soda isn't that much better than regular soda, or the affect it could have on certain people.
http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S710586.shtml?cat=0

The next "revenue producer" has been proposed by the EPA and has been dubbed the "Cow Fart Tax". This tax is supposed to be charged ($175 per cow) on farms that have over 25 dairy or 50 beef cattle. Bad enough farmers are having a tough time in this economy, let's knock 'em down a few more rungs with a tax on their cow's emissions. The tax is in response to the amount of methane,a greenhouse gas, that the cows emit.
http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/EPA-exempts-farms-from-reporting-toxic-fumes/lDgR8rxstkaGjlEDP-AxNQ.cspx (scroll down to the 12/10/08 entry)

The soda tax is analogous to our Canadian "sin taxes" on beverage alcohol, casinos, lotteries and tobacco.

Our booze and smokes prices on these are much higher than yours, so much so that cigarette smuggling has become a recent phenomenon in recent years. Cheap tax free cigarettes are manufactured tax-free (usually from native reservations) or illegally imported and sold tax-free and illegally through a network of suppliers.

Frankly, taxing booze and smokes to raise $$$ and curb consumption makes much more sense than soda.

The cow fart tax is just deceptive. I do not think that one dime of that tax will actually go to address the methane problem. And what happens to the farmer whose cow dies and never contributes financially to the farmer? It's still taxed unfairly.

If they want to tax cows more fairly, why don't they tax the beef, milk and milk products, so the tax is more closely linked to a revenue stream........?

Oh yeah, thats right! It's taxing food! All voters eat! Instead, they will just hide a food tax and lose the support of only 4% of the voters (farmers)

Our booze and smokes prices on these are much higher than yours, so much so that cigarette smuggling has become a recent phenomenon in recent years. Cheap tax free cigarettes are manufactured tax-free (usually from native reservations) or illegally imported and sold tax-free and illegally through a network of suppliers.

Frankly, taxing booze and smokes to raise $$$ and curb consumption makes much more sense than soda.

http://www.9wsyr.com/mostpopular/story/Cayuga-Nation-closes-stores-after-cigarette-ruling/LjLQ98_KzU-0nbGg-wpFYA.cspx
There was a big incident locally in late November when police raided two Indian run convenience stores and seized 1.5 million cigarettes. That has been a big issue in our state, the failure to collect taxes on cigarettes sold by Native Americans to non- Native Americans. The convenience stores that are non-Indian run are hurting and the loss of revenue from not being collected is astounding. The police are even arresting and charging those who are non-Indian who have in their possession, too many tax free cigarettes. Even during this traffic stop:http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/Cigarette-buyer-pleads-not-guilty-to-tax-evasion/8-g_rxxgeEW-aMKqWRn0Vw.cspx
The State is claiming that if it was able to collect the tax that is due on these cigarette sales, NY wouldn't be so far in the hole that they are now, that is why increased enforcement of the laws is now a priority.

The next "revenue producer" has been proposed by the EPA and has been dubbed the "Cow Fart Tax". This tax is supposed to be charged ($175 per cow) on farms that have over 25 dairy or 50 beef cattle. Bad enough farmers are having a tough time in this economy, let's knock 'em down a few more rungs with a tax on their cow's emissions. The tax is in response to the amount of methane,a greenhouse gas, that the cows emit.

http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/EPA-exempts-farms-from-reporting-toxic-fumes/lDgR8rxstkaGjlEDP-AxNQ.cspx (scroll down to the 12/10/08 entry)


"Cow Fart Tax" :lol:

Obviously it would be grossly unfair to the dairy farmers and ranchers. But a lot of the above issue is hyperbole and/or misleading. See below.



Source: FactCheck.org
December 29, 2008

Q: Is the EPA considering a tax on cows and pigs?
A: No. The farm lobby warned that EPA "could" push for such a tax, but EPA never proposed any such thing and says it lacks authority to impose one anyway.
This one is a case study in how lobbyists sometimes justify their own salaries by loudly fighting against hypothetical but non-existent threats from Washington.

The source of this hokum is a misleading news release put out by the American Farm Bureau Federation on Nov. 20. The highly inaccurate headline read: "AFBF Opposes EPA-Proposed Tax on Livestock." In truth, however, the Environmental Protection Agency hasn't proposed any tax on livestock. In fact, the Farm Bureau's own documentation admitted as much.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_the_epa_considering_a_tax_on.html

"Cow Fart Tax" :lol:

Obviously it would be grossly unfair to the dairy farmers and ranchers. But a lot of the above issue is hyperbole and/or misleading. See below.

[/i]
Very good point. Journalists regularly take information from 'press releases' and use them as sources for various stories. It's quick, cheap and easy, but misleading if they do not do their due diligence.

EDIT: Journalism can be misleading even when they check all the facts. Sensationalism and stories of injustice build ratings, website visits and newspaper sales and thus produce a bias in reporting.