NY Gov's Tax and Spend Shocker Adds 137 Hikes While Increasing Budget to $121B

[ladiesbballcoach]

Most of our interstate system was built decades ago when our tax burden was much lower. Relatively little of the taxes that we pay go into our roads. How many stay at home spouses do you know? How many did you know when you were a kid? Two working parent households were much less common when I was young. In many ways our standard of living has declined already but I am more concerned with what will happen when the bill for today's taxing and spending comes due.

 

But our tax money today is being spent on adding or maintaining those same roads. AA has improved the quality of life in my area and it was built in the last 20 years.

 

When I was a kid, I didn't really pay too much attention to it, so I don't know. But none in my family growing up. And none in my family now. So, no change there.

 

I would expect the same things that are happening when the spending and credit ways of our society has come due over the past year.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Just because it is not a good choice for you does not mean that it is a bad choice for me, nor does it mean that I should be taxed for my choice.

 

I have no problem with taxing those things that are not a basic necessity of life.

 

And that would include taxing my favorite Diet Mt. Dew.

[rockmom]

As a diabetic, though, that is not a good choice for me. I go that route and I will have serious medical issues that you are going to be paying for in the future.

 

 

So, because Hoot and I are not diabetic and have concientious objections to artificial sweetners, it's OK that we'd pay more for a non-diet drink?

 

Would you feel the same if they raised the tax based upon carbonation, caramel coloring, & phosphoric acid? Meaning you'd now pay more for you diet-soda?

 

What about if caffeinated coffee were taxed higher than decaf?

[ladiesbballcoach]

I have no problem with taxing those things that are not a basic necessity of life.

 

And that would include taxing my favorite Diet Mt. Dew.

 

So, because Hoot and I are not diabetic and have concientious objections to artificial sweetners, it's OK that we'd pay more for a non-diet drink?

 

Would you feel the same if they raised the tax based upon carbonation, caramel coloring, & phosphoric acid? Meaning you'd now pay more for you diet-soda?

 

What about if caffeinated coffee were taxed higher than decaf?

 

For the record, my post was #17.

Yours was #18.

I answered the question before you asked it.

Scary.:scared::eek:

 

Basically, I have no problem with taxing those things that are luxuries or detriminal to the benefit of society.

Every person should be provided the opportunity to fulfill their necessities of life at the lowest cost possible.

Other things should be taxed and those that are bad for society, taxed more. Cigarettes, fast food and alcohol would be examples.

[Hoot Gibson]

I have no problem with taxing those things that are not a basic necessity of life.

 

And that would include taxing my favorite Diet Mt. Dew.

Why wait to be taxed? There is no law against sending extra money to the government if you believe taxes are too low. Just don't make that choice for those of us who believe that we are already overtaxed.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Why wait to be taxed? There is no law against sending extra money to the government if you believe taxes are too low. Just don't make that choice for those of us who believe that we are already overtaxed.

 

Please point out to me where I said taxes were too low.

Don't use that same emotional rhetoric to deflect my point.

 

Taxes are going to be there for the armed services, roads, schools, medical research, etc, etc, etc. That have to be collected.

 

I am proposing the way I think they should be collected.

 

My proposal is that this would cover the basics in government spending. We wouldn't be paying for some art projects to be funding by artists that can't sell their own works if I was doing it and other such things. I would cut many of the welfare programs and challenge the churches to step up and be doing in their communities what Christ calls them to do and quit passing the buck onto some government that is not Christ's church. Bailouts, do a better job and ask the consumer to bail you out or go find a job is what I would tell the CEO's.

 

I would expect to not be reelected either. I would perturb too many people.

 

There is a lot of things that I would cut and expect the private sector to support if I was doing it.

 

So, in essence, your taxes would probably be a lot lower if I was doing the tax and spending.

[Hoot Gibson]

Please point out to me where I said taxes were too low.

Don't use that same emotional rhetoric to deflect my point.

 

Taxes are going to be there for the armed services, roads, schools, medical research, etc, etc, etc. That have to be collected.

 

I am proposing the way I think they should be collected.

 

My proposal is that this would cover the basics in government spending. We wouldn't be paying for some art projects to be funding by artists that can't sell their own works if I was doing it and other such things. I would cut many of the welfare programs and challenge the churches to step up and be doing in their communities what Christ calls them to do and quit passing the buck onto some government that is not Christ's church. Bailouts, do a better job and ask the consumer to bail you out or go find a job is what I would tell the CEO's.

 

I would expect to not be reelected either. I would perturb too many people.

 

There is a lot of things that I would cut and expect the private sector to support if I was doing it.

 

So, in essence, your taxes would probably be a lot lower if I was doing the tax and spending.

That is good to hear but I am opposed to tax policies that attempt to curb perfectly legal behavior such as pushing the button for a regular Coke instead of a Diet Coke. However, I agree with you 100% when it comes to funding the arts. Our society is affluent enough that the government does not need to support artists and make winners and losers of them.

[ladiesbballcoach]

That is good to hear but I am opposed to tax policies that attempt to curb perfectly legal behavior such as pushing the button for a regular Coke instead of a Diet Coke. However, I agree with you 100% when it comes to funding the arts. Our society is affluent enough that the government does not need to support artists and make winners and losers of them.

 

Especially when you whiny Hollyweird actors making $30 million per movies or $5 million per TV episode who could fork over some funds if it is so daggone important to fund the arts.

 

I would tax both soft drinks. First thought, wouldn't tax water, milk or tea bags.

 

The increased taxes on cigarettes in this state has lowered the smoking rate in KY if I am not mistaken. The best way to discourage unhealthy choices is to hit the person in their wallet.

 

Now, if unhealthy choices did not raise the costs of everyone else's medical insurance, health insurance and as a result taxes, I wouldn't agree with it. But because they do and those bad choices in the long run raises your costs and (back to a point you made) lowers the standard of living, than I feel you have to either pay the costs at the front (taxes on those unhealthy choices) or pay the costs at the end.

 

Sorta like that guy in the old Midas commercial. You can pay me now or pay me later.

[Hoot Gibson]

Especially when you whiny Hollyweird actors making $30 million per movies or $5 million per TV episode who could fork over some funds if it is so daggone important to fund the arts.

 

I would tax both soft drinks. First thought, wouldn't tax water, milk or tea bags.

 

The increased taxes on cigarettes in this state has lowered the smoking rate in KY if I am not mistaken. The best way to discourage unhealthy choices is to hit the person in their wallet.

 

Now, if unhealthy choices did not raise the costs of everyone else's medical insurance, health insurance and as a result taxes, I wouldn't agree with it. But because they do and those bad choices in the long run raises your costs and (back to a point you made) lowers the standard of living, than I feel you have to either pay the costs at the front (taxes on those unhealthy choices) or pay the costs at the end.

 

Sorta like that guy in the old Midas commercial. You can pay me now or pay me later.

The best way to discourage bad choices is to let the people making the choices live with the consequences of those choices. Let insurance companies deny coverage or impose penalties on people who want to engage in risky but legal behaviors. Let the government start denying welfare benefits to people who want to drink and smoke at taxpayers' expense. What the government should not be doing is exercising control over the legal behavior of the people who are paying taxes and providing for their own medical expenses. When Uncle Sam starts paying my bills, then I will accept his micromanagement of my daily routine.

[ladiesbballcoach]

The best way to discourage bad choices is to let the people making the choices live with the consequences of those choices. Let insurance companies deny coverage or impose penalties on people who want to engage in risky but legal behaviors. Let the government start denying welfare benefits to people who want to drink and smoke at taxpayers' expense. What the government should not be doing is exercising control over the legal behavior of the people who are paying taxes and providing for their own medical expenses. When Uncle Sam starts paying my bills, then I will accept his micromanagement of my daily routine.

 

I agree with you but we both know that is never going to happen, so instead you have to look for a system that best works.

 

And the government excercises control over your behavior and is the one that makes the decision on whether your behavior is legal or not. You drive 65, you are legal. Drive 66 and you are not.

 

But the thing also is that you are paying for the medical expenses of those that have the risky behavior. We both know that you are.

 

Our society has gone away from making people responsible for their own actions. And we won't return to those days again until R v. W is overturned.

[cch5432]

I agree with you but we both know that is never going to happen, so instead you have to look for a system that best works.

Should we quit being against R v W because it will never be overturned?

[ladiesbballcoach]

Should we quit being against R v W because it will never be overturned?

 

Guaranteed that it will be overturned.

Might not be till the day that JC returns on a cloud but it will be overturned.

 

And I guess you know my answer to your question. I will be against it despite the position of this country till the day I draw my last breath.

[Hoot Gibson]

I agree with you but we both know that is never going to happen, so instead you have to look for a system that best works.

 

And the government excercises control over your behavior and is the one that makes the decision on whether your behavior is legal or not. You drive 65, you are legal. Drive 66 and you are not.

 

But the thing also is that you are paying for the medical expenses of those that have the risky behavior. We both know that you are.

 

Our society has gone away from making people responsible for their own actions. And we won't return to those days again until R v. W is overturned.

When we stop protesting government's attempts to restrict our natural born freedoms, then our elected officials will strip us bare of all of them.

[ladiesbballcoach]

When we stop protesting government's attempts to restrict our natural born freedoms, then our elected officials will strip us bare of all of them.

 

So drinking a Coke is a natural born freedom?:sssh:

 

The rhetoric is going off the charts here Hoot.

[cch5432]

Guaranteed that it will be overturned.

Might not be till the day that JC returns on a cloud but it will be overturned.

 

And I guess you know my answer to your question. I will be against it despite the position of this country till the day I draw my last breath.

I agree with you about being against it forever, regardless of the odds of it happening.

 

I just don't get how you justify changing your political beliefs because you say that it "won't be overturned". Personally, I think you should support what is best no matter what the likelihood.