3% Tax on Toilet Paper & Toothpaste to Save the Environment!
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Feds Prepare To Tax Toilet Paper In Name Of Climate Change
another wonderful proposed tax in the name of saving the world.
before i get the obligatory flaming from the liberal peanut gallery,
it might behoove you to consider that when it comes down to it,
there is really NOTHING that relates to human life that could not be (MIS)construed to be "bad for the environment".
Under that suicidal "logic", we may as well revert right back to a straight poll tax, a tax on the human head itself, call ourselves cattle, moo for these fuckers, be branded, and march right off to the meat lot.
Understand also that a 3% tax put on at the MANUFACTURER level insures that EVERY user pays this tax regardless of whether their toothpaste really goes on to "kill the world" or instead perhaps ends up in some gray water system, a constructed wetland, a septic tank\leech field, or some other NON-detrimental end place of decomposition.
(as a side note, the government in MOST states, under pressure from federal codes i'm quite sure, has most of these "Grey water" systems held as strictly ILLEGAL on the grounds of environmental\human health itself. thus proving the idiocy and hypocrisy of a system which claims through taxes on you to be concerned with the environment, but as expressed in terms of the regulations allowing or prohibiting appropriate grassroots technologies [read: NON CENTRALIZED solutions] it is clearly NOT appropriately concerned and actually serves to prohibit people from taking proactive measures against environmental impacts.)
Ultimately all ANY of this alleged environmental taxing legislation ends up doing is putting a tax upon the people, and stifling the "personal economy". Because things like toilet paper and toothpaste are essential items (to most 1st world-ers anyhow) they, like oil, could be considered to have "inelastic demand", their consumption therefore and just like oil CAN NOT BE SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERED BY PRICE INCREASES -- INCLUDING TAXES.
If you want to argue this fine.
But i think you could do studies to show that you would have to raise the price of toothpaste quite substantially in order to decrease consumption. People simply feel they "need" to clean their teeth.
If you THEN want to obfuscate by saying, "but yeah well the tax itself is good for the environment, and can be used to counter the effects of the toothpaste" i then have to ask you just what kind of goofball you are.
a. this is no longer about what you said it was about.
it is simply about a tax mans witch hunt to find an item with inelastic demand upon which to place a tax in order to extract money in order to put it towards some purpose.
I do not accept that i am responsible for repaying to the earth via my government ANY such tax upon my toothpaste or ass-paper ANY MORE SO THAN I ACCEPT A TAX UPON THE AIR WHICH I BREATHE!
This is just getting downright SILLY!
??? IS IT NOT ???
another wonderful proposed tax in the name of saving the world.
before i get the obligatory flaming from the liberal peanut gallery,
it might behoove you to consider that when it comes down to it,
there is really NOTHING that relates to human life that could not be (MIS)construed to be "bad for the environment".
Under that suicidal "logic", we may as well revert right back to a straight poll tax, a tax on the human head itself, call ourselves cattle, moo for these fuckers, be branded, and march right off to the meat lot.
Understand also that a 3% tax put on at the MANUFACTURER level insures that EVERY user pays this tax regardless of whether their toothpaste really goes on to "kill the world" or instead perhaps ends up in some gray water system, a constructed wetland, a septic tank\leech field, or some other NON-detrimental end place of decomposition.
(as a side note, the government in MOST states, under pressure from federal codes i'm quite sure, has most of these "Grey water" systems held as strictly ILLEGAL on the grounds of environmental\human health itself. thus proving the idiocy and hypocrisy of a system which claims through taxes on you to be concerned with the environment, but as expressed in terms of the regulations allowing or prohibiting appropriate grassroots technologies [read: NON CENTRALIZED solutions] it is clearly NOT appropriately concerned and actually serves to prohibit people from taking proactive measures against environmental impacts.)
Ultimately all ANY of this alleged environmental taxing legislation ends up doing is putting a tax upon the people, and stifling the "personal economy". Because things like toilet paper and toothpaste are essential items (to most 1st world-ers anyhow) they, like oil, could be considered to have "inelastic demand", their consumption therefore and just like oil CAN NOT BE SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERED BY PRICE INCREASES -- INCLUDING TAXES.
If you want to argue this fine.
But i think you could do studies to show that you would have to raise the price of toothpaste quite substantially in order to decrease consumption. People simply feel they "need" to clean their teeth.
If you THEN want to obfuscate by saying, "but yeah well the tax itself is good for the environment, and can be used to counter the effects of the toothpaste" i then have to ask you just what kind of goofball you are.
a. this is no longer about what you said it was about.
it is simply about a tax mans witch hunt to find an item with inelastic demand upon which to place a tax in order to extract money in order to put it towards some purpose.
I do not accept that i am responsible for repaying to the earth via my government ANY such tax upon my toothpaste or ass-paper ANY MORE SO THAN I ACCEPT A TAX UPON THE AIR WHICH I BREATHE!
This is just getting downright SILLY!
??? IS IT NOT ???
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
check your pm's
Anyway, I'm all for use taxes. They make far more sense than income taxes to me.
Yeah, but not simultaneously... How about one or the other?
exactly!!
YES! its good to have ya back
just like people who take advantage of a disaster like katrina to make money off unsuspecting people - the gov't is no different ...
the threats of climate change are indeed real - we already are suffering those changes ... we cannot sustain our current way of life - sure, the devastation may not be felt by you and i because we are privileged but at the end of the day - imagine everyone on this planet living like you and i and what the earth would be like ...
consumption of products and natural products is a major problem ... someone mentioned bottle water (it's horrible) ... as we all know tho taxation may not be the best solution simply because the gov'ts use that money to fund stupid wars ...
so, in a way - i agree that taxing things left and right will not save the environment necessarily ... we do need to find a way to live a more sustainable way of life ...
Is the tax going to Gore's foundation?
given that we're discussing toilet paper.....is that a pun?
totally agree on that. income tax and then sales tax....gets a little out of hand at times...
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
all my tp/paper at home is made from 100% recycled paper products ... heck - even at work it's like that ...
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
well ... i would say definitely not but i do work for a very big company and i know a lot of big companies that do it ...
if you read the harry potter books - we were the first country to have the entire print published on ancient forest friendly paper ... other countries followed suit in subsequent books ...
The US Government, the Major US Multinational Conglomerate Corporations it partners with, and the Anglo-European Establishment Elite that run both have access to the largest propaganda network in the world: Major Media, the Major Universities, the largest think tanks, work groups, lobby organizations, NGO policy institutes, big wig charity funds &c &c &c and so forth.
IF THEY REALLY WANTED CHANGE THEY COULD HAVE IT!
The same people who CLAIM to be interested in saving the world from stupid humans, have owned access to ALL the major networks of information and charity disbursement.
Instead of using the bluntest of all weapons to confront the problem -- taxes -- they could be using the finely honed blades of INFORMATION and DIRECT AID to attack the issue and change the world almost overnight.
Put shows on TV that explain to people how to live off the grid, how to grow their own food, how to make their own shit, and how to rely on each other and community instead of on polluting big box retail and multinational industry. Teach similar courses at colleges, and direct research, policy, outreach, funding, and charity efforts towards these same goals.
If your goal is to RADICALLY CHANGE HUMAN BEHAVIOR PATTERNS you need to PROVIDE ALTERNATIVES.
If your goal is to simply PAY LIP SERVICE to this agenda, and SUCK THE PEOPLE BONE DRY in the process,
then you do what the elite ARE doing: set up a control grid, jack taxes through the roof, and put the screws to the economy under the guise of "environmentalism".
Actually the elite are putting in the framework for the fulfillment of their true goal as we speak.
Following the "logic" (see Obama's Chief Science Advisor thread for details) that the biggest threat to this planet is man himself, it follows "logically" that the solution is simply to rid the earth of man.
To that end, currently proposed legislation and international agreements are doing a DAMN good job of paving the way for massive world wide mortality rate hikes:
1. Carbon credit & "green" legislation will hamper industrial economies, and potentially cripple personal economies.
2. Codex Alimentarius guidelines going in to effect end of 2009 stand to set conditions for the slow starvation of several billion people in 3rd world areas.
3. Planned land use and water use restrictions set the stage for resource "wars" and personal desperation.
4. Any further energy price increases stand to push global food supplies out of the price range of many 3rd world citizens, causing famine. (google "oil contango", understand huge investors are hoarding oil, driving up price)
5. Any continuation of the "global economic slowdown" (particularly in combination with any energy price increases, which sounds non-sensical; can and will be blamed on "inflation") will cause continued slides in to poverty and potentially famine for many parts of the world.
6. Any further "outbreak" of any of these new "super diseases" which suspiciously keep popping up, stands to threaten the global food supply, causing famine and death.
7. Any geo-political instability on a large scale (confrontation with Iran, Korea, China, Russia, et al) will do the same.
Some of these are merely potential threats, several of them are very clear and pre-meditated efforts to ostensibly do several different things, while in reality creating a giant death trap for the worlds poor.
Of course if NONE of this gets population levels down to what is deemed acceptable by the experts -- again go ask Obama's senior science advisor, he gives you the actual preferred population figures -- then they will just move on to more draconian measures still -- as outlined in that douchebag's text book from the 70's.
Forced abortions, and sterility poisions, ho!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Look at the tax on "unhealthy" foods that's supposed to help stop obesity. If the foods are the problem ban them.
The only thing getting fatter is the government's wallet and it's control over us.
The government is looking for every possible way to squeeze every cent out of each of us and take away our freedoms.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The citizenry cannot be reliably counted upon to do the right thing on their own. Therefore, government must step in and give them a push.
"All men are NOT created equally. And it it the responsibility of the government to make them so."
—Kurt Vonnegut "Harrison Bergeron"
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
With all due respect, FUCK THAT.
amen!
I agree for the most part - the sad truth is that there ARE alternatives right now but not enough people benefit from those alternatives so we don't use em ... i suppose it all falls under the guise of the "economy" ...
in any case - my point is that just because the gov't claims to be doing something for the environment - it doesn't make it so ... and that the true desires of environmentalism are meant to benefit all life on this planet ...
Well for one thing, people generally believe when something is a big undertaking, only a big, powerful, 'unquestionable' authoritative body must take care of it. Translation: the government. Once upon a time, I used to think this way myself-- as it almost seems like the obvious place to look for solutions. I don't anymore.
The other myth is that more tax revenue is a good thing-- as if it will actually provide tax relief elsewhere. It isn't, and it doesn't. It's money out of our pockets to an entity that proves time and time again that it will rarely spend our money with any thrift or efficiency. I always compare the government's use of our money to the same drunken bum you see on the street everyday. You can make all the donations in the world to this body, but if it's going to be wasted on stupid shit, there is no point.
Until all levels of government can prove that they are actually trying to cut the fat out of their operations, they shouldn't be given another cent. Actually, a REAL tax boycot is long overdue. The problem is that everyone is either scared, doesn't care, or doesn't realize their own power.
And as far as banishment of unhealthy foods, I'm not even for that. Let people ban unhealthy foods for themselves. I haven't eaten at a fast food chain in over a year and a half. It was a conscious choice I made to live a healthier lifestyle. There is more info out there than ever to help guide your decisions in what you put into your own body. I would say it's necessary to do some research. Just because the FDA has approved a drug, a vaccine, or a certain type of food, doesn't mean it's good for you or even safe. The info that they provide can be compared to other private research to help with your decision making.
Quite simply put, it always comes down to you in the end. If people would only focus on taking care of themselves and their families, everything would fall into place naturally.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'