Double drink prices, urges doctors -

So, by allowing the continued encroachment on our lives with government growth through taxation, we allow the government to become dependant on the revenues. They will never decrease and if the revenues are lost, they will find something else to tax. Now it is taxation of soda as a "sin tax". You support that and soon your ox will be gored. When all other substances are taxed out of existence, and the revenues are lost, water WILL be taxed.

It has happened in my state. Tobacco and alcohol taxes have been increased to the point that both consumption and illegal purchasing is up, depriving the government of their "revenue". Now the state is looking to implement a "service" tax. Taxes on services are next, hair cuts, dry cleaning, home repairs, etc.

BTW, you confused your threads. This one is not about tobacco, it is about alcohol.

Pragmatically there is nothing I can do about this kind of taxation, except not buying said taxed item. Could the government get so large and rediculous they tax water - it a possibility - BUT a tax on water and a tax on alcohol (or tabacco) are not moral equivalents. You won't get any sympathy of consequences for bad health choices - BTW - isn't the "slippery slope" argument a fallacy . . .

It has happened in my state. Tobacco and alcohol taxes have been increased to the point that both consumption and illegal purchasing is up

Doesn't surprise me - notice these folks with their civil disobedience are NOT paying the tax.

Now the state is looking to implement a "service" tax. Taxes on services are next, hair cuts, dry cleaning, home repairs, etc.

Cut your hair at home, wash your clothes at home, do your own home repairs - no ones forcing you to get haircuts, dry clean your clothes, or pay someone to fix your house.

Now the state is looking to implement a "service" tax. Taxes on services are next, hair cuts, dry cleaning, home repairs, etc.

Correct - my bad

"BUT a tax on water and a tax on alcohol (or tabacco) are not moral equivalents."

Yes, the tax on alcohol or a tax on water is morally equivilant. Any tax is immoral. The use of the products may have moral differences, but the tax on either is immoral. A tax is nothing more than theft of unearned cash. It is immoral. That seems to be the difference in our philosophies. You think a tax is acceptable as long as it is on a behaviour/product you find to be immoral.

The problem with that thought process is that every $1 gained by taxing the immoral behaviour will be a new $1 for spending. After the immoral behaviour declines, and the revenues with it, the $1 spent is still spent. They will then move on to a new behaviour to tax. They can't unspend their $1. Sooner or later, a necessary behaviour (drinking water) will be taxed.

"Doesn't surprise me - notice these folks with their civil disobedience are NOT paying the tax."

Yep, and the government can catch them and put them in jail. They can enforce their taxation by the barrel of a gun!

"Cut your hair at home, wash your clothes at home, do your own home repairs - no ones forcing you to get haircuts, dry clean your clothes, or pay someone to fix your house."

Great response. What happens to the people that run those businesses? You just advocated the abolition of small service businesses. What a great thing, taxation drives people out of business, then we can grow government dependence via unemployment.

Remind me what a real patriot is again.

Yes, the tax on alcohol or a tax on water is morally equivilant. Any tax is immoral. The use of the products may have moral differences, but the tax on either is immoral. A tax is nothing more than theft of unearned cash. It is immoral. That seems to be the difference in our philosophies. You think a tax is acceptable as long as it is on a behaviour/product you find to be immoral.

Consumption taxes are not immoral because one only pays when one choses. Don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the product. A tax of my income directly, that is immoral.

Great response. What happens to the people that run those businesses? You just advocated the abolition of small service businesses. What a great thing, taxation drives people out of business, then we can grow government dependence via unemployment.

No I advocated not paying a tax, not the abolition of small service. Perhaps the two could be related if there actually was a terrible tax on hair cuts, but there isn't. So your wild speculation here is rather moot. However, if there was a decline in business it would not be my fault that a business goes down the tubes. The market bears what it can.

"Consumption taxes are not immoral because one only pays when one choses. Don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the product. A tax of my income directly, that is immoral."

Every tax is immoral. To deny this is the same as saying that some theft is moral, while others are not. It is the same as saying a crime was deserved. Would you blame the victim of rape because she dressed a certain way? Would you blame the victim of a mugging because they chose to go to a certain area of the town?

Every tax is the confiscation of money earned by someone else. Every tax is confiscation of productivity of the productive to fund some government agency. No government agency is required to be efficient and competitive. In fact, the accounting practices forces them to be as inefficient and uncompetitive as possible.

Theft is immoral, tax is theft!

"No I advocated not paying a tax, not the abolition of small service. Perhaps the two could be related if there actually was a terrible tax on hair cuts, but there isn't. So your wild speculation here is rather moot. However, if there was a decline in business it would not be my fault that a business goes down the tubes. The market bears what it can."

Your lack of logic is quite clear in this statement. The only way to avoid paying the tax is to no longer consume the service. If the tax is high enough, the number of consumers chosing to no longer consume the service will increase. That will directly result in a smaller market. The number of suppliers of the service will be smaller to meet the smaller market demands. That means people will lose their businesses and become unemployed. Therefore we create a new class of persons dependant on the government for handouts.

My "wild speculation" is not moot. The proposal to implement a "service tax" has been made. It is real. Why don't you admit that every $1 in taxation is $1 spent. When the taxed decide to not consume the taxed product/service, the government must find another way to steal that $1? They will never not spend it, they will find a different way to collect it!

You misunderstanding of the result of taxation on the market needs to be pointed out:

"However, if there was a decline in business it would not be my fault that a business goes down the tubes. The market bears what it can."

Government intervention in the market will cause the costs to be inflated. No longer will the market be able to bear what it can, instead the government is dictating prices with a tax policy. What other aspects of socialism are you complacent about?

Theft is immoral, tax is theft!

If I could live in a world without taxes that'd be great, but it's not realistic. The two certainties in life are death AND . . .

Furthermore some taxes are moral - the ones you pay when you want to - (consumption taxes) because the government is the objective agency that sees that legal contracts between free moral agents are carried out in full. In order to act in this regard the government needs money, so consumption taxes - which are paid only when one makes a choice to buy said taxed product - provide the money necessary for the government to act in it's contract compulsatory role. Government, unfortunately, is a necessary evil in today's world (primarily because humans generally tend to be nasty creatures) to enforce contract, otherwise. Therefore not all taxes are immoral. We can agree that a direct tax of earned income is immoral.

Your lack of logic is quite clear in this statement. The only way to avoid paying the tax is to no longer consume the service. If the tax is high enough, the number of consumers chosing to no longer consume the service will increase. That will directly result in a smaller market. The number of suppliers of the service will be smaller to meet the smaller market demands. That means people will lose their businesses and become unemployed. Therefore we create a new class of persons dependant on the government for handouts.

Like I said it could happen - I admitted that - but currently . . . nada. I'll make you a deal, when they start taxing haircuts so bad that I can't afford to get my hair cuts anymore, I'll get back to you (we'll make signs and protest!). Remember a haircut is not a vice - this is the distinction. A haircut is not a habit. Haircuts do not contribute to healthcare costs of people who get haircuts. There's a difference.

"If I could live in a world without taxes that'd be great, but it's not realistic. The two certainties in life are death AND . . ."

I agree.

"Furthermore some taxes are moral -"

Wrong. Any and all money not earned, yet confiscated/stolen is immorally gained. However, the use of that money may be necessary. i.e. defense of the nation.

"because the government is the objective agency that sees that legal contracts between free moral agents are carried out in full."

Wrong again. The only thing the government can do is make a ruling. The actual adherence to a contract is between the two private entities. If one party breaks the contract, doesn't pay for products/services, the other party is free to withhold their products/services.

"Government, unfortunately, is a necessary evil .........Therefore not all taxes are immoral."

Evil is always immoral, regardless of necessity.

"Like I said it could happen - I admitted that - but currently . . . nada. I'll make you a deal, when they start taxing haircuts so bad that I can't afford to get my hair cuts anymore, I'll get back to you (we'll make signs and protest!). Remember a haircut is not a vice - this is the distinction. A haircut is not a habit. Haircuts do not contribute to healthcare costs of people who get haircuts. There's a difference."

How about protesting the average $0.60 government taxation on gas? How about protesting the cost of a gallon of gas? We all know that government regulation at the fed and state level is the real reason the cost is going up. The environmentalist wackos have been successful and now we are paying the price.

Let's try and wrap this up - point, counter point, is starting to take up too much time (it's my obsessive compulsive personality)

I support an added tax on cigs and alcohol (other drugs as well, if made legal) to help financially support the healthcare problems that each toxin created. While I don't buy your slippery slope argument (taxation of cigs/alcohol will lead to a tax of haircuts and water), the argument is not without logic. I think you have a real concern here outside of having a "cheap habit" (although I don't think you would mind if smokes costed less either). The governmet's misuse of these funds is an entirely different issue IMhO.

The reason gas prices are high in the first place is because of taxes and added extra ingredients, especially in Kali (I paid $2.22/gal when I filled up on Sunday). However, the current rise in gas prices more closely relates to increased demand, less supply, and a weak dollar. I don't expect gas prices to come down too much - we're running out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.