States eye 'sin' taxation as salvation for budgets

Washington Times ^ | 1/16/11 | David Eldridge

[markomalley]

How about the state governments just going on a diet themselves. Stop spending so damned much.

[youngidiot]

And the wheels on the bus go ‘round and ‘round.

[goldstategop]

Sin taxes are popular because they don’t have politically power constituencies. There’s not much defense of tobacco, alcohol, sweet snacks or gambling.

Look for taxes on these goods to go up.

[G Larry]

How about the dope happy states like CA and CO starting w a $20/oz tax?

[kevslisababy]

I think that is one of the big reasons behind the push to legalize it.

[Ingtar]

Time to start taxing politicians, lobbyists, and community organizers?

[Uncle Ike]

Mr Capone??

Mr. Al Capone - please pick up the white courtesy phone.....

[Red Badger]

Whatever you tax you get less of.
Ergo, they raise the taxes on sodas, sugar snacks, tobbacco and alcohol, people will cut back........

[kevslisababy]

I wish!

[Richard Kimball]

You’ll also see new “initiatives” to increase highway safety. More seat belt, speeding and DWI enforcement. I’m noticing a LOT more police cars running radar.

[susannah59]

Mark, I could not agree more!

Besides, they will find that this is a great way to raise money: for the people willing to bootleg whatever it is that is being taxed.

Think "bootlegging" went out with Prohibition? Think again! I hear that these days it is cigarettes, but I am sure it could just as easily be soft drinks.

Why, so you want to tax tanning booths. What's to stop me from buying my very own tanning bed and installing it in a bedroom in my house, then inviting my friends to use it?

I don't see how these taxes will raise as much money as they think, because people will either cut it out, cut back, or find a way around paying.

[Rebelbase]

“How about the dope happy states like CA and CO starting w a $20/oz tax?”

Dealers most affected.

[Lockbox]

January 11, 2011 (Breakpoint.org) - Politicians are always talking about taxes. Some of them want to “soak” the rich; others want to raise “sin” taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. But I can think of one “consumer item” we’ll never see a tax on: sex. But maybe we should. Sex—the wrong kind of sex, that is—is driving up the cost of government.

In a recent column, marriage expert Mike McManus explores the high cost of out-of-wedlock sex. For instance, over 7 million American couples live together. Four out of five of those couples will break up without ever tying the knot. But, McManus writes, if they’ve had a baby, many of those mothers and children will be eligible for Medicaid, housing and day-care subsidies, and food stamps.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/should-we-have-a-sex-tax

Should we have a sex tax?

by The Editors

Tue Jan 11, 2011 13:11 EST

[I_Like_Spam]

These kinds of new taxes are great news for mobsters and racketeers.

[wally_bert]

Paying cash for black market tanning beds might be a start.

[Waco]

States and the Feds should not be allowed to impose a tax on something which they disaprove of. If they don’t like people smoking they should be forbidden to tax cigarettes, butt out.The pols put a tax on boat builders and pretty well destroyed that industry before it was repealed. Didn’t bother them a bit. The FEDS lost more revenue than they gained.

[April Lexington]

Heck... jest tax liberals!

[sickoflibs]

We have the alcohol tax increase coming in MD, Dems already raised taxes on cigarettes and increased the sales tax.

[Gumdrop]

Is it too much to suggest that maybe the “sins” they should tax are those of irresponsible sex??? Instead they are sooooooo PC. They only go after those behaviors that the liberals are scorning at the moment.

[Parmy]

Here in WA state, sin taxes have been rampant over the decades. But, we just overturned a slew of sin taxes this last election and sent a stark message to Olympia. Scared the hell out of the Governor and the tax and spend legislators.