http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2009/02/13/beshear-signs-tax-and-budget-bills-into-law/

 

I'm sure there is a thread on this somewhere, but I couldn't find it. I'm curious to hear everyone's view on this.

By the way, if you now buy a bottle of wine, liquor, etc. you ar paying DOUBLE sales tax.

Seems strange that in the state that makes the most bourbon, you are paying more than every state but one for a bottle now.

And the majority of counties that are dry will reap the benefits of this while paying nothing for it.

 

When will Jefferson County see their share of the coal severance money?

And the majority of counties that are dry will reap the benefits of this while paying nothing for it.

 

When will Jefferson County see their share of the coal severance money?

 

Great point.:thumb:

I love it! At least with this move citizens actually get to choose if they want to pay this tax or not. Let's don't get started about coal severence taxes. The coal and timber has been robbed of Eastern Kentucky and what was given back to the people living there???? Welfare programs!! Those people have no airports, decent roads, phase I electric development, proper sewage and waste management, or anything else that attracts growth. So, they have become hopeless, helpless, victims of poverty. Eastern Kentucky is mostly a rural ghetto. This tax will hit many of them, too. But at least with this folks can choose NOT to pay, simply by not doing things that are bad for them.

And those holier then thou counties that stay dry will reap the benefits of it. IMVHO all counties should now be required to "go wet" or not get one cent of the increased tax revenue.

 

Why would counties that espouse the evils of alcohol to such a degree that they won't allow sale wnat any of that evil tax money anyway?

And those holier then thou counties that stay dry will reap the benefits of it. IMVHO all counties should now be required to "go wet" or not get one cent of the increased tax revenue.

 

Why would counties that espouse the evils of alcohol to such a degree that they won't allow sale wnat any of that evil tax money anyway?

 

:thumb:

I've never understood why the government expects alcohol/tobacco users to bear a heavier tax burden than other luxury/sin/nonessential good users. If the product is such a "sin" that you are imposing a greater tax to discourage its usage, then just ban the product altogether. A cigarette smoker should not bear a heavier tax responsibility than a Twinkee eater, french fry eater, or eggnog drinker - they are all unhealthy for you. If it's a "luxury" tax, why not place stiffer taxes on fur coats, jewelry, certain cars? Why has it become the responsibility of smokers and drinkers to pay a higher percentage of our roads, bridges, education, and infrastructure?

And those holier then thou counties that stay dry will reap the benefits of it. IMVHO all counties should now be required to "go wet" or not get one cent of the increased tax revenue.

 

Why would counties that espouse the evils of alcohol to such a degree that they won't allow sale wnat any of that evil tax money anyway?

 

I think this arguement is fair enough. And if no tobacco is grown in a county, they get no tobacco tax money. Cool!!!

I've never understood why the government expects alcohol/tobacco users to bear a heavier tax burden than other luxury/sin/nonessential good users. If the product is such a "sin" that you are imposing a greater tax to discourage its usage, then just ban the product altogether. A cigarette smoker should not bear a heavier tax responsibility than a Twinkee eater, french fry eater, or eggnog drinker - they are all unhealthy for you. If it's a "luxury" tax, why not place stiffer taxes on fur coats, jewelry, certain cars? Why has it become the responsibility of smokers and drinkers to pay a higher percentage of our roads, bridges, education, and infrastructure?

 

I guess it's because they have to pick on stuff that enough people actually buy to make it worthwhile.....

 

Jerry Clower recommended a tax on joggers. His theory: since they were probably going to live longer they should pay more.

I think this arguement is fair enough. And if no tobacco is grown in a county, they get no tobacco tax money. Cool!!!

 

Not the same at all because the increased tax is on the SALE of tobacco products not the growing of it. Are there any counties in Kentucky that outlaw the sale of tobacco products?

Not the same at all because the increased tax is on the SALE of tobacco products not the growing of it. Are there any counties in Kentucky that outlaw the sale of tobacco products?

 

Sure it's the same. The purpose of taxation is supposed to be to use the money for the "common good". If you are going to designate that money derived from one type of taxation only be used for certain citizens; then, why not prioritize all tax dollars, according to where they came from, who produced the revenue, etc. It sounds like you espouse the opinion of many of our forefathers who believed only the wealthy land owners and merchants should benefit from government.

And the majority of counties that are dry will reap the benefits of this while paying nothing for it.

 

When will Jefferson County see their share of the coal severance money?

 

Outstanding post All Tell!!!

And those holier then thou counties that stay dry will reap the benefits of it. IMVHO all counties should now be required to "go wet" or not get one cent of the increased tax revenue.

 

Why would counties that espouse the evils of alcohol to such a degree that they won't allow sale wnat any of that evil tax money anyway?

 

Even better than the other post AT!!! :ylsuper:

Sure it's the same. The purpose of taxation is supposed to be to use the money for the "common good". If you are going to designate that money derived from one type of taxation only be used for certain citizens; then, why not prioritize all tax dollars, according to where they came from, who produced the revenue, etc. It sounds like you espouse the opinion of many of our forefathers who believed only the wealthy land owners and merchants should benefit from government.

Because the tax doesn't come from the growing of tobacco products it comes from the sale. Plus what if a country's ground is able to support tobacco growth? Should they be penalized for something they can't controll? The countries that are dry CHOSE to be. Why should they then benefit from the money generated by the evil alcohol?

Because the tax doesn't come from the growing of tobacco products it comes from the sale. Plus what if a country's ground is able to support tobacco growth? Should they be penalized for something they can't controll? The countries that are dry CHOSE to be. Why should they then benefit from the money generated by the evil alcohol?

 

You can't sell it, if it isn't grown. Tobacco farmers have already been punished enough with the elimination of the government price support system. I'm glad I live in a dry county. I wish prohibition had worked, but since it didn't (due to corruption and a weak president who gave up too soon) let's punish the alcohol industry all we can for all the ills it causes in society: addiction, broken lives, broken homes, death on the highways........