EDITORIAL: A first in pollution fees

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 5/26/8 | Editor

[w1andsodidwe]

How to drive business out of your town.

[the invisib1e hand]

Its success or failure will be a model for both the state and the nation.

How can it fail? The city says the cost of a business license is $101.00, as opposed to the $100.00 it was. Who's going to argue?

The Audacity of Incrementalism.

[Hoodat]

So these businesses can continue to pollute as long as they give kickbacks to their fascist overlords?

[Repeal The 17th]

"...the Bay Area air quality district voted last week to
assess fees on TAX about 2,500 polluting businesses that they regulate..."
---
There, I fixed it.

[neodad]

the third, fortunately, or unfortunately, is the way it's going to have to be until there's an administration in the White House that's willing to impose the second.

Not going to have to wait long.

[bronxboy]

Where to begin? If this were not such a serious economic issue, I say let them tax their way into obscurity. Unfortunately, all the presidential candidates are drinking from the same kool aid. If you think this is going to be a huge boondoogle, wait until McShamesty or Obamarama get into office. We will be paying through the nose for their policy on man made global warming.

[RC2]

I would bet that they have kept the fee’s low to see if anyone complains. If they don’t, they will raise them considerably over time. Anything to get more money for the politicians.

[sheana]

I saw an interview with a guy from a group awhile back (don’t remember what group) that did a study on the costs of McCain’s Cap and Trade legislation. They said it would cost each American family $3500 a yr or more.

[Navy Patriot]

This allows businessmen to see the future in the Bay Area and indeed, all California.

The obvious response, move out and take your taxpaying employees with you.

The worldwide globull warming scam may implode in spite of the grandiose propaganda and tyranny from the leftist, watermelon, get absurdly rich, frauds. Or, maybe not.

If so, California will remain a economically depressed entitlement sewer, the bright spot being Tijuana.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

The next thing you know, SF will be passing new regulations and laws making it illegal for businesses to move out of the city or even go “out of business”.

[bert]

You are at least half wrong

[sionnsar]

The fees aren't large... yet. But it won't be long.

[sergeantdave]

“...the Bay Area air quality district voted last week to assess fees...”

We have here the classic “taxation without representation.”

Well, if an unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy can illegally and arbitrarily assess taxes, then, correspondingly, it should also be under the purview of citizens to throw these Marxist totalitarians out of office by whatever unaccountable and arbitrary method they might choose.

This is an example of dictatorial government anarchy without law and without constitutional restraint, overview or representation.

[deadrock]

Shhhh. This is top secret. Move closer to the screen.

Companies don't pay taxes/levies/fines/surcharges/ETC, the customer does.

Well, it must be a secret because the left hasn't figured it out yet. Idiot politicans.

[Last Dakotan]

The beginning of the end.

[Tzimisce]

The fees aren’t large (until about a year from now when they’re raised to the ceiling.)

[rockinqsranch]

“...(until about a year from now when they’re raised to the ceiling.)”

And when they raise those fees in about a year, you nor myself will hear a thing about it in the MSM.

[SAJ]

Directive 10-239, eh?

I shouldn't put it past them trying insanity such as this.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !