define "Need."
And, who are you or anyone else to define what I "Need."
I FUCKING HATE RADIO. I drive to and from work.
so i download music. Am I now to be taxed because you feel I don't "Need" it? Or will it drive me to more illegal download sites and torrents?

Oh, and I sell soda for a living. Demographic I sell to doesn't give a CRAP about diet soda. I sell about 20:1 regular Vs. diet sodas. Are my sales to now suffer because you think they should have Aspertame instead of delicious sweet sugar and corn syrup?

Different story and does not apply to my argument, as that type of law does not allow opt-out with paying higher $$$. That’s a law that says, 'we think this is dangerous whether you are poor or rich'




Don't drag me into that, I'm only talking about sugar soda tax

As for Evan, I'm sure his overhead will increase some due to the increase complexity of the different tax rates now. Also the increase complexity at the state level to regulate. Most likely the increase in overhead to maintain such a tax will negate the increase in revenue IMHO.

Evan's a pusher. I bet he even gives the kiddies their first sugary drink for free just to lure them in!!!

Psst! Yo, kid! C'mere kid, I got something for ya. You're gonna like it a lot. Go ahead...take it. You know where to come to get more, right kid?

My business is wholesale. I don't charge tax. It will however, affect my sales.

But it still has a regressive effect. It's much easier to buy a helmet if you can afford one. So the effect of compliance on the family budget is similar. (And if you can't afford a helmet, should you have to give up your ability to bike?)

ok if you go that route then if you can't afford decent tires and pass inspection should you have to give up riding your bike? Where does this end?

Ok this whole thing is silly, much more to worry about in this world. Happy Holidays all, I'm out!

Happy Holidays all,

Including Gov. Patterson too, Smike, despite the thread title?

Sadly, yes IMO. It's not like we have a constitutional RIGHT to ride a bike. Likewise with cars - I don't want the impoverished driving unregistered, uninsured, unsafe cars on the road. It's pay-to-play man, and the gov't rules exist to protect the rest of us from having to foot the bill that results when Joe "ain't got me no insurance" six-pack hurts himself/others.

That reasoning is why I don’t have a problem with the idea of this particular tax under our tax system today. But I understand that just about all specific taxes have unintended results, and that everything we can think of needs to be weighed carefully while knowing that we will still have missed something.

Ideally Empicard would be reimbursed for lost business, but we know that would not happen.

In general I believe in a far simpler more efficient tax system. But that won’t happen unless we the people step up, make the hard choice and pay the large tax bill we would then receive.

Instead of putting wine and beer in grocery stores, it might be better to move cigarettes, soda and other unhealthy products into the liquor store system and tax them accordingly! Can’t say I know where to draw the line though.

ok can we once and for all agree on this STUPID TAX LAW????

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468245,00.html

Just in case you want to pick on the fact that its a Fox news story:

http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/17/15880/trouble-diet-soda/