We’re Gonna Get Your Mind Right (and tax you, too)
Jul 29, 2009 Political
Because we have, in this country, a little thing called Freedom of Choice, some people make bad choices. That’s okay, they have the freedom to be less than smart- at least for now. But if Hussein and his bevy of Czars have their way, we will have so much less in the way of freedoms and choices.
Like cattle in the chute, our path is narrowing, and soon we will have nowhere else to go but in the direction they are herding us. All in the name of control and taxes.
First up on the tax agenda was cigarettes, in the name of “sin” taxes- I mean, those bad old cigarettes, who could possibly object to the persecution of those misguided sinners? I am sure that beer and liquor are coming up fast, but since sodas and fattening foods are more prevalent, there is more to be made from taxing these, and the body police can make the case that this will help the healthcare costs. I am dubious, since, if one wants, most of these things can be made at home.
Still, here come the food taxes, like it or not, as these people “nudge” our behavior ( “Nudge” is a behavioral theory propounded by one of Hussein’s Czars, Cass Sunstein) towards what they perceive to be the “ideal” way to live, which they will dictate.
If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor overweight (and, thus, considered at risk of becoming obese), you might well conclude that the habits of the remaining two-thirds of Americans are costing you, big time. U.S. life expectancies are expected to slide backward, after years of marching upward. (But that’s their statistical problem: Yours is how to make them stop costing you all that extra money because they are presumably making poor choices in their food consumption.)
“Facing the serious consequences of an uncontrolled obesity epidemic, America’s state and federal policy makers may need to consider interventions every bit as forceful as those that succeeded in cutting adult tobacco use by more than 50%,” the Urban Institute report says. It took awhile — almost 50 years from the first surgeon general’s report on tobacco in 1964 — to drive smoking down. But in many ways, the drumbeat of scientific evidence and the growing cultural stigma against obesity already are well underway — as any parent who has tried to bring birthday cupcakes into her child’s classroom certainly knows.
latimes.com
Perhaps instead of banning the cupcakes, people might consider the choice of healthy foods at home, but to disappoint children by not having cupcakes on a special occasion is a fairly mean- spirited thing to do, all in the name of fitness. But indeed, fitness is but a strawman argument for these “Czars” and their policies.
It is really all about raising money for their repressive policies and behavioral theories.
Key among the “interventions” the report weighs is that of imposing an excise or sales tax on fattening foods. That, says the report, could be expected to lower consumption of those foods. But it would also generate revenues that could be used to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, and perhaps to fund campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available to, say, low-income Americans and to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits.
If anti-tobacco campaigns are to be the model, those sales taxes could be hefty: The World Health Organization has recommended that tobacco taxes should represent between two-thirds and three-quarters of the cost of, say, a package of cigarettes; a 2004 report prepared for the Department of Agriculture suggested that, for “sinful-food” taxes to change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10% to 30% of the cost of the food.
And although 40 U.S. states now impose modest extra sales taxes on soft drinks and a few snack items, the Urban Institute report suggests that a truly forceful “intervention” — one that would drive down the consumption of fattening foods and, presumably, prevent or reverse obesity — would have to target pretty much all the fattening and nutritionally empty stuff we eat: “With a more narrowly targeted tax, consumers could simply substitute one fattening food or beverage for another,” the reports says.
latimes.com
Yes, these Socialists are making a list and checking it twice. They are going to make you skinny by taxing you so much that you have no money left to make a bad choice with.
Except the bad choice that was made with the last election.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: fascism, fast food, freedom of choice, taxes
Senator Cardin Does Not Get It
Jul 21, 2009 Political
Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland was involved in a Town Hall meeting and was asked by a person about health care and why the government would fine him if he did not get a policy. Robert Broadus laid it out for Cardin:
“I decided not to get the health insurance. That’s working out for me because I’m able to save that extra money and give it to my family members and use it on myself. Senator Cardin, I want to know are you going to tell me an individual…that I have to buy health care or else you’re going to fine me $2,500 every year I don’t get it? Our founding fathers assured us we have a Bill of Rights and I want to see you uphold that,” Broadus said in an increasingly emotional voice and to scattered applause. WUSA9
Cardin’s answer was a scary one because he basically stated that the guy would have problems if he had a serious medical condition. This could be true but Cardin made it sound as if the guy was a freeloader who would not make arrangements to pay his bill.
Cardin responded by asking Broadus what would happen if he became sick, broke a bone, had a car accident and ended up in an emergency room.
“You don’t pay. You are part of the population that shifts its costs over to a person who does pay, and they’re paying for you,” Cardin said.
Explaining how hospitals have often to absorb those costs, Cardin said many hospitals would chose simply to leave the community.
“I just think the overriding public interest is to require you and everyone in this country to have health insurance,” Cardin said.
Cardin said that it was in the public interest to require everyone to have health insurance. Why? Cardin’s lame excuse about hospitals and individuals who pay absorbing the cost falls flat. Hospitals and people who pay already absorb a great deal of cost. Hospitals also absorb the cost of government run Medicare and Medicaid. The government sets rates and never reimburses the total cost. This is one reason that patients have a plethora of tests and procedures. It is done for two reasons. The first is to prevent a lawsuit for some undiscovered problem and the other is to jack up the bill so the reimbursement is higher.
Additionally, with government run health care or a public option, if you will, everyone pays the bill. Well, the people who pay taxes pay the bill. There is no difference between the cost being spread out in the case Cardin describes and the cost being spread out among the populace in order to cover everyone.
There are plenty of ways to solve this problem that do not involve the government getting involved. Government does not have any money and it does not make money. Government extorts money from people who produce and then redistributes it to those who don’t. Washington DC only consumes, it does not produce.
Cardin is out of touch with reality because he is like the rest who want complete control over our lives. They already hold the elderly hostage with Social Security and Medicare and now they want to expand their reach to hold everyone hostage.
It is all about control over our lives and nothing more.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: ben cardin, control, health care, punishment, taxes
Democrats Might Exempt Unions From Taxes
Jun 28, 2009 Political
The plan to tax health care benefits is on the table and will likely be put into place if this abortion of a health care plan passes. Democrats need a way to pay for the plan so they will take your taxes to pay for others and then they will tax your health benefits to pay for others. Incidentally, Barack Obama made a big deal out of McCain’s proposal to tax health benefits during one of the debates. This is something he said was unprecedented (it is) and that he did not favor that idea. Now he says that Congress is dealing with this. If it happens Obama should man up and veto it. He won’t.
I have a problem with benefits being taxed. People are generally paid lower salaries because of the cost of health care and the tax exempt status of it allows them to keep a little more of their money. If the government starts taxing it then our wages are effectively cut. We will not get paid more to make up the difference.
The article discussing this (link below) states that only high value or “gold plated” plans are the object of taxation but don’t let this fool you. Once they have the tax in they can adjust it anyway they want. They will start lowering the bar as the cost of the plan increases (and it will). This is also not the only plan being considered. It is wise to keep both eyes open when Democrats are talking about raising taxes. The whole gold plated idea is another redistribute the wealth philosophy of Obama. God forbid private business takes good care of an employee.
Perhaps we should take a close look at what the members of Congress and Obama gets. The perks with regard to health care are out of this world. There is a whole floor at Walter Reed dedicated to taking care of these people. It is never full but costs nearly a million a year to operate. Let Obama get sick and he is off to Bethesda. Let a Congressman have a brain tumor and he gets great care and then is transferred for even better care. Hell, they have a physician at the Capitol (or in one of the common buildings) to tend to them during the day so they do not have to miss work.
Let’s start taxing that…
The Democrats need to make this plan easy on their constituents so they are considering exempting unions from the tax. The plan is that any benefit (and union benefits are good ones) received as a part of collective bargaining would be exempt from the tax. Why is this? This would seem to violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
I have a few thoughts on it. First, the Democrats cannot tick off the unions or they will lose a lot of elections. The unions are a main voting block for Democrats and they cannot afford to lose it. Second, this might be a backdoor way of increasing union membership without the unconstitutional (and inappropriately named) Employee Free Choice Act. If government exempts unions then maybe more people will want to join unions or have their shops become unionized in order to avoid the taxes.
I am not sure which but there is no way that people should stand still and allow this to happen. If they exempt unions then those of us not in unions should consider making a conscious effort NOT to purchase any product made by union employees (the unions recently did this with their “Made in China” plastic hats. Put them out of business.
But we should definitely ensure that anyone who votes for it is beaten in the next election.
Source:
Bloomberg
Tags: Democrats, gold plated, health care, taxes, unions exempt
Watch For The Insidious Tax Increases
Jun 20, 2009 Political
The Democrats are working on a health care plan for Obama who wants it done this year. They want this done very quickly because the longer they mess with it the longer the American public has to see what it really involves. Once people start kicking the tires and looking under the hood they will not like what they see.
Republicans have been shut out of the process and Democrats have reported they were told NOT to work with Republicans on this issue.
This is all on the Democrats and what they will do is triple even what Obama wanted to spend and they will raise taxes on everyone. The Democrats are not willing to say this and they are trying to hide it until they can push this through because they know higher taxes are not popular. Like Carlie Rangel said, they want to get the particulars out but not the taxes so people become happy with the plan. Then they will mention the taxes. They don’t want any negative press on it.
The Democrats are looking at a number of ways to tax YOU. They will tax everyone. Here are some things under consideration (this is not all inclusive):
The tax options include:
– Increasing the price of soda and other sugary drinks by 10 cents a can.
– Applying a potential 2 percent income tax increase to single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year and households earning more than $250,000.
– A new employer payroll tax could target 3 percent of employers’ health care expenditures.
– Taxing employer-provided health insurance benefits above certain levels – a less likely option but one that still is in the running. My Way News
The second item is specific to people who make certain incomes and that would be about the upper 3%. There are not enough wage earners in this category to pay for the cost of health care.
The other three items involve everyone. If you consume cola or other sugary drinks, you would be affected. If you have employer provided health insurance you might have to pay taxes on 3% of it or on all of it. The government will require it to be reported as income and then tax you. You will pay taxes on your health care benefit in order to pay for someone else’s health care. Incidentally, this will cause many employers to drop health care for their employees and force employees into Obamacare, just like he wants.
Obama said he would not raise taxes on those making under certain levels (that number changed several times) but it looks like his Democrats are working on methods of taxing nearly everyone.
The article discusses the different taxing schemes and the dishonesty of the Democrats. Remember, Rangel said that they did not want to disclose the taxes because they would get negative attention. This article shows they are still intent on keeping quiet about the huge tax increases:
The draft, being released at a news conference of the chairmen of the three committees with jurisdiction – Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor – was not expected to mention the potentially unpopular tax options. [emphasis mine]
The Democrats are well on their way to outspending the last 8 years and they will do so in record time. In order to do that they need to obtain money so the question they will be asking is; “What’s in your wallet?”
Related:
Who Are The Big Spenders? American Thinker
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Congress, health care, Obama, spending, tax increases, taxes
Free Choice isn’t Always the Right One
Jun 16, 2009 Political
There is an assault on our rights of free choice here, in the name of health care, as the government is busy making a list and checking it twice- they’re darn sure going to ensure that you are nice, because liberal busybodies that they are, they just have to get in your face with their version of “what is right” in their minds. They might be right in their intent, but we are Americans, and we should still have the option to make “bad” decisions. This is a part of freedom, as well as a necessary part of a learning curve.
One of the most persistent parts of this assault on our freedom of choice has been the battle against tobacco. Tobacco has been the boogeyman since 1964, when the Surgeon General came out with the report linking tobacco with lung cancer, emphysema, and other side effects and diseases. In addition, this product is addictive, with nicotine the primary drug in the tobacco, so it becomes extremely difficult to rid oneself of the habit.
This business, however, is legal, much as the liquor business is legal, and the tobacco business employs millions of people throughout the growing, packaging, and shipping process. People for whom tobacco has been a way of life for literally generations. It’s all they do- all they know how to do.
Lord, the whole state was built on tobacco,” Roddie Hancock, 56, a cafe owner in Bailey, said as he swatted flies buzzing over the counter where he sold bread pudding and chew bread. Hancock grew up on a small tobacco farm and picked leaves as a child. He said folks here “don’t want the government having anything to do with tobacco.”
To make this point, Sharp, who is president of the North Carolina Agribusiness Council, traveled to Washington two weeks ago. He said he was shocked to hear that people deluged politicians’ offices urging passage of the bill to highlight the health effects of smoking.
“Even in the caves of Afghanistan, they understand that cigarettes can be dangerous,” Sharp said. “Everyone knows that.”
Everyone, including Sharp. He said he quit smoking five years ago — it was too unhealthy and expensive — but still keeps a black ashtray on his desk, next to the adding machine and jar of blister-fried peanuts.
washingtonpost.com
Tobacco is already taxed beyond belief, and the mindset regarding the tax is a bit troubling- people who advocate the tax say that it will cut down on smoking, and cause people to quit, which means less tax money for the government coffers- so how will they make up for the shortfall? In addition, we as a people are losing the right (some would say good to this) to make bad decisions- this is a necessary part of freedom here- not everyone is capable of making the right decision. It might even be said that what is right for one is not right for another.
While I personally have quit cigarettes four years ago, after having tried for forty years, I still have a problem with the government coming in and saying that they care about the people while taxing the snot out of a legal product.
The $89 billion tobacco industry will be required to disclose the ingredients in cigarettes and other tobacco products and will face severe limitations on how they are advertised and promoted.
The legislation stops short of allowing the FDA to prohibit tobacco or to eliminate nicotine, the addictive drug in tobacco.
Congress has been battling for more than a decade over regulating tobacco, coming close several times but faltering in the face of procedural hang-ups or opposition from the tobacco lobby or the White House. Over the years, changing social attitudes toward smoking have helped transform the suggestion of regulating tobacco from controversial to common sense.
washingtonpost.com
Next, will be the hamburger and fries you like to eat, and of course, the amount you eat. What you eat will become more healthy, whether you like it or not. Obesity will be the next target, possibly with some tax on certain foods on a menu. If you exceed a certain amount of calories, you get a food tax above and beyond the present sales tax. Or if your body fat index exceeds government guidelines, you pay more for health insurance. We already have this with regards to smoking tobacco, and your obesity will play into insurance costs.
What a shame- look, as I have said, I quit smoking, but I do like to eat, and sometimes I like to eat cheeseburgers and fries- should I be penalized for choosing this legal food? We should still have the freedom to do so without governmental interference. The same should be true with smoking- yes, it is a bad even harmful habit, it is distasteful and, as my daughter observed, stinky- but it is still legal, and the free market should make the decision on this product.
Restaurants should be able to decide whether they are smoking or non- their patrons will make the decision for them, and economics should dictate what bars and restaurants do in their business. People should retain the right (or the stupidity) to make bad decisions- this is how most of us learn in life. Very few people actually learn from the mistakes of others, and so what this becomes is a constant Darwinian “learning curve”- if your mistake is not too severe, you survive and learn.If the government keeps you from making these mistakes, you might never learn from them.
And that’s no way to become adults in this world- you have to learn what it is you have done wrong, before you can do it right.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: freedom, government interference, responsibility, taxes