How bad is the burden government greed puts on small businesses? Prager U has the answer
The Left loves it some taxation. Taxes raises needed funds the Left can buy votes with, and punishes behaviors the Left despises, and rewards certain behaviors the Left approves of. One of the more recent tax schemes the Statists have embraced is soda taxes, which punish you partakers of evil sugar. It should come as no surprise that San Francisco is actively trying to get in on that scam
Backers of a sugary drink tax say the issue will be on San Francisco’s November ballot, despite missing a key deadline by one day.
Campaign organizers had announced Thursday morning that they had collected nearly double the number of signatures required to qualify.
But elections director John Arntz, whose office verifies the signatures, said the campaign missed the deadline to submit those signatures.
The campaign called the mishap a “technical error,” and vowed to continue the fight against soda companies whose products they say contribute to obesity, diabetes and a host of other health ills.
Supervisors can place a measure on the ballot or soda tax supporters can also choose to circulate another petition and collect the 9,485 signatures needed by July 11.
Berkeley, California, became the first city in the country to approve a soda tax, in 2014. That year, a San Francisco campaign for a sugary drink tax failed at the ballot, as it did not get the two-thirds approval needed for a dedicated tax.
Oh but of course Bezerkley would have one of these draconian taxes wouldn’t they? So, how much extra would it cost those damned Individualists who dare continue drinking soda?
This year’s proposal for a general tax of one cent per ounce needs a simple majority to pass.
One cent, per ounce? So, that means a twelve pack of canned Coke would cost $1.44 more, a full case $2.88 more. Does not sound like a lot does it? But of course, the poor, you know the folks the Left claims to be fighting for, would be hardest hit. Typical! And what of fruit juices? I bought my niece some juice the other day. Welchs grape juice to be precise. It is, as you might expect good for you, but it has a LOT of sugar. When will that be hit with a tax? How about certain fruits that contain natural sugars? Cereals? How about them? Full of sugar, even Cheerios, or Rice Krispies, and my favorite cereal as a kid, Kellogs Raisin Bran? LOADS of sugar. Where does this venture into using taxes to punish behavior end?
Of course, silly me, I should have known, it IS for our own good!
“We’re not just going to sit back while our families suffer, while our parents suffer, while children get manipulated by the big soda industry and the community is destroyed,” said San Francisco Supervisor Malia Cohen earlier Thursday, surrounded by advocates.
Ah, of course BIG SODA! It is manipulating our kids, and making families suffer! And, oh yes, somehow it is also destroying our communities! Oh the horror, oh the humanity, oh spare me the Liberal BS.
Note how Ms. Cohen paints people as helpless victims that she and her fellow egalitarians will shield them from? Again spare me! As I mentioned I do a lot of shopping for my niece, and there are certain foods I will not buy her because of what they contain. She loves hot dogs, and I do buy them, but, I always get the ones with the lowest sodium content. She will not eat veggies, except green beans, and green peas. So, when I buy her juice boxes, I get those that contain fruit and vegetable juice. For snacks, I buy her the healthiest ones I can, raisins, cheese, granola bars, pickles, peanut butter, bananas, apples, peaches, pears, those yogurt squeeze things, or smoothies.
The fact is, it is not difficult to find healthier alternatives for yourself, or for kids either. We do not need an over intrusive government to “help us” by punishing us. Face it the government cannot help us by restricting our choices or our liberties.
Dead patriots at Benghazi? Hillary cares not a bit. But redistributing wealth? She is all in on that
Hillary Clinton on Monday proposed a 4 percent tax on the wealthiest sliver of taxpayers who earn more than $5 million per year.
The so-called “surcharge” on the wealthiest 0.02 percent would generate $150 billion over the next decade, according to a Clinton campaign aide.
$150 Billion? Over ten years? Hell that would not pay for Pelosis’ Botox
The suggested tax follows Clinton’s promise last month as she campaigned alongside billionaire investor Warren Buffett to build on the “Buffett rule,” which would establish a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on those earning more than $1 million per year. Buffett has criticized tax policies that allow the rich to pay lower rates than the middle class.
Why don’t people like Warren Buffet explain why anyone needs to pay 30% of their income to government? Especially given governments incredible record of waste, fraud, and corruption. Why not CUT needless spending Mr. Buffet? Let those that earn the money keep as much as possible? Why not but out 99% of the exemptions too? Go to a flat or a consumption tax?
“I want to go further and impose what I call a fair share surcharge on multi-millionaires because right now, we’re behind and we need to get the wealthy and the corporations to pay for their fair share, so I can keep my promise, which is I will not raise taxes on the middle class,” Clinton said at a campaign stop in Iowa on Monday.
Miss Hillary, if the U.S. Treasury is “behind” blame Congress for, say it with me, spending too fucking much!
Participants: Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Donald Trump, John Kasich, Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina
NOTE: Kiddie table debate begins at 7pm and includes the following candidates: Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal