Stop the Price increase!

many things are unfare. but what i ment in this thread was any item of the same value should be taxed at the same rate. to tax one item at higher rates than another of the same value is unfare.

personally i dont like sales taxes much anyways but if they are going to tax an item tax all on the same level and not over tax one item cause its unliked by some people. or in the case of fuel oil and its products its over taxed because they know we need and want it and that means they will get the extra tax money.or to tax at a higher rate an item that a minoritity of the people use just because the majoritity dislike the item. be it smokes or twinkies.

its just ploys to divide and conquer, but not the big buisness that many on these fourms fear so much its the goverment thats does it to us be it federal state or local.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"twinkie tax" as a cure for the "fattest people" on Earth. Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University's Center for Eating and Weight Disorders, says slapping high fat, low nutrition foods with a substantial sin tax is one step society hasn't tried.


Brownell sees a system that would involve devising a calorie-to- nutrient index, with low calorie, vitamin-stocked fruits and vegetables on one end of the spectrum and fat-drenched, low nutrient fast foods at the other. The scale would not be based on a simple measure of fat (a necessary nutrient) but on a more complex analysis of nutrients per calorie.

The higher up the scale any given food item was, the higher the tax on it would be. Foods with low calorie-to-nutrient ratios would pay no tax at all and might even be subsidized in some way to make them cheaper to buy. Brownell acknowledges that the plan might seem odd, but he says that 30 years ago the idea of raising cigarette taxes to recover health costs would have seemed far-fetched. U.S. News & World Report: Shaheena Ahmad, 12-29-97/1-5-98, p. 62.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


just wondering here. in all the varuois countries and states that read this thread :
what unit of messurment is gas sold there: gallon, liter ?

and what the price per unit is?

then what is the tax rate your local country, state or city has added on the sale?

 

By Mark Tatge

Apparently unsatiated by their huge claims on booze and cigarettes, the tax police are planning a major snack attack. Potato chips, cookies, sodas, candy--a $30 billion-a-year business--are being targeted by more than a dozen revenue-starved states under the misguided impression that by charging a few extra cents per can or bag they can trim their budget deficits and encourage the rest of us to slim down. Fat chance. Among the assaults:

NEW YORK plans a new sales tax (one-quarter of 1%) on sweets and snacks, on top of a bill to ban the sale of junk food from vending machines in public schools. The resulting $50 million a year would fund programs to fight childhood obesity.

WASHINGTON State's SB 5928 would lift the sales-tax exemption for candy, aiming to raise $40 million a year.

Legislators in ARKANSAS defeated a bill to add a 1% sales tax on junk food, which would have added up to $14 million a year to fund K-12 education, but it's far from dead.

VERMONT'S lawmakers tried to raise $5 million for education by adding a 6% sales tax to snack foods. The bill died, but legislators are talking about reviving the idea of a snack tax.

A plan in NEBRASKA to extend the state's 5.5% sales tax to snack foods and baked goods flamed out last year, but supporters hope to bring it back as a way to raise an extra $5 million.

© 2006 Forbes.com

 

Fat Tax Roundup

Like a weed or a virus, health nanny Kelly Brownell's idea for a "Twinkie tax" on high-calorie and high-fat foods has spread as far as England and New Zealand. Legislatures in New York and California have debated the fat tax, and U.S. News & World Report actually called it one of 16 "smart ideas" to save the world. We've been telling you for years how silly fat-taxes are -- and we're not the only ones:

"Taxers will also hurt those who eat 'junk food' without becoming obese. How fair is that? ... It is not so much the clinician's belief that people can be socially engineered that is faulty, but the obnoxious assumption that everyone (except the experts, who know better) are helpless victims to be protected from their own appetites and the predation of fast-food pushers." (Hawkes Bay Today, New Zealand)

"Who's going to decide what's a bad food? Is soda bad? If so, is diet soda bad? Is orange juice bad because it has sugar in it? Is guacamole bad because it's high in fat?" (The News and Observer, Raleigh)

"The phrase 'toxic food environment,' or TFE, is an especially brilliant touch. A coinage of Kelly Brownell, director of the Yale Center for Eating and Weight Disorders, it subtly recasts free citizens as helpless victims of an impersonal force." (Bloomberg News)

"The fattest speaker at a recent conference on obesity was the anti-fat campaigner Kelly Brownell, who never tires of comparing Ronald McDonald to Joe Camel. If pointing to Brownell's gut or his extra chin seems mean, consider how you would feel about a chain-smoking anti-tobacco activist or a slots-playing anti-gambling crusader. Brownell is not the only portly leader of the fight against obesity. John Banzhaf, the George Washington University law professor who is a conspicuous advocate of suing fast food companies, also could stand to lose more than a few pounds." (Reason magazine)

"Now we can herald the arrival of another high-salaried group of geniuses (being paid directly from our pockets) with the assignment to make weighty decisions on which foods make us fat. While the government impresses us with refunds and rebates with one hand, (Big Brother is your friend), they hope we will be distracted enough by their pseudo-beneficence to ignore the other hand stealthily picking our pockets. As for what makes us fat, those decisions alone could take a huge committee of Fat Police more than a lifetime. Perhaps that's the idea -- to give someone a lifetime salary for very little work." (Marco Island Sun Times, Florida)

"But having met with little success as mere advocates, these new, private policemen such as CSPI now wish to impose their regimen on everybody else...they enjoy running other people's lives, and they are willing to pass laws to gain that influence ... The leaders of CSPI have decided that on this issue, citizens must be forced to do what someone else says is good for them." (Jewish World Review)