Explain this thought process, please.

[TXgolfer]

I think so too.

I found a misinform in my post, I'm going correct the misinform about Fair Tax will charge on new auto, new house, mortgage, auto payment, credit card payment, medical bills, etc unless politicians are going make them as not taxable or at special tax.

Our state have special sale tax on car, that is 3%.

6.25% here....3% is cheap. Problem with Alabama is they don't have salvage titles..... A car that is wrecked, burned and tossed in the lake....then salvaged carries the same title as any other car. Alot of our TX junk is hauled to Alabama for rehab.

 

[Foxrac]

6.25% here....3% is cheap. Problem with Alabama is they don't have salvage titles..... A car that is wrecked, burned and tossed in the lake....then salvaged carries the same title as any other car. Alot of our TX junk is hauled to Alabama for rehab.

Oh interesting, property tax is cheap in AL too and one medium full brick house on 1/2 acres of land cost $600 per year, but in some portion of Jefferson County, property tax can be higher as $1,500 per year.

 

[netrox]

What happens when consumers quit "sinning?" There will be no more revenue from those taxes then. How will they pay for the health costs then?

When they quit, they no longer pose a signficant risk therefore they don't need to pay more than non-vicers.

Yes, that means less tax revenue but that doesn't matter BECAUSE the taxes are MEANT to pay for their medical costs/education, not for other purposes. Less vices=less medical costs=less taxes.

 

[TXgolfer]

When they quit, they no longer pose a signficant risk therefore they don't need to pay more than non-vicers.

Yes, that means less tax revenue but that doesn't matter BECAUSE the taxes are MEANT to pay for their medical costs/education, not for other purposes. Less vices=less medical costs=less taxes.

I am actually not opposed to "sin" taxes IF they went directly to treatment of problems caused by the sin....... However our government is too corrupt to ever keep their word on such a promise.

 

[Reba]

When they quit, they no longer pose a signficant risk therefore they don't need to pay more than non-vicers.

The problem is, health problems that are the result of smoking, drinking, and other lifestyle choices are long term. Even if smokers quit buying cigarettes, their heart and lung problems (for example) continue for many years. Where do you get the money then?

Yes, that means less tax revenue but that doesn't matter BECAUSE the taxes are MEANT to pay for their medical costs/education, not for other purposes. Less vices=less medical costs=less taxes.

Who determines which medical costs are the result of which taxed purchases?

What do you mean about the education costs? Do you mean state lotteries? In our state, revenues from the lottery are supposed to fund education. But using your reasoning, suppose everyone suddenly "sees the light" and quits the gambling vice. No more lottery money for schools.

You see, the need for the money doesn't go away even if the source does.

 

[Jiro]

Sin Tax

 

[netrox]

The problem is, health problems that are the result of smoking, drinking, and other lifestyle choices are long term. Even if smokers quit buying cigarettes, their heart and lung problems (for example) continue for many years. Where do you get the money then?

Use whatever left of the sin tax money. The heart disease with smoking is down to same risk within a few months but cancer may take decades but it's not much.

Who determines which medical costs are the result of which taxed purchases?

We need the panel of statisticians/physicians/accountants for that.

In our state, revenues from the lottery are supposed to fund education. But using your reasoning, suppose everyone suddenly "sees the light" and quits the gamboling vice. No more lottery money for schools.

Lotto doesn't seem to produce the kind of addiction that casinos do - it's rare. Most cases of gambling addiction is often based on impulse needing instant gratification and that's what slots, craps, blackjack, etc are.

You see, the need for the money doesn't go away even if the source does.

hey, dont' blame me!

 

[Reba]

Use whatever left of the sin tax money. The heart disease with smoking is down to same risk within a few months but cancer may take decades but it's not much.

The health effects of smoking would last a lot longer than the money would last.

We need the panel of statisticians/physicians/accountants for that.

Oh, great, add on a new layer of bureaucracy. :roll:

Lotto doesn't seem to produce the kind of addiction that casinos do - it's rare. Most cases of gambling addiction is often based on impulse needing instant gratification and that's what slots, craps, blackjack, etc are.

Money from lotteries doesn't go to gambling addictions; it goes to education. Even if gambling lessens or ends, education costs continue.

hey, dont' blame me!

I'm not blaming you for anything. I'm stating a fact of life.

 

[jillio]

true altruism? nah no such thing... even Church asks for $$$

What I meant is that if we do not have a financial burden especially keeping up to pay taxes... we are more likely to help out than if we're financially restricted.[/QUOTE]

Fallacy. Numerous social psychology studies have shown that assumption is false.

And that is what I am trying to get at. Are people making their decisions politically based on some fallacy they heard somewhere down the road, or are they basing them on fact and reason?

 

[jillio]

Sounds like a great reason for an increase in gas tax, tire tax or tolls rather than a tax on income. IMO. Have people that use the roads pay for the roads. Hard to get more fair than that

And what portion of the population do you think those taxes will be coming from? The wealthier and more mobile. So your argument about an income tax punishing the rich is moot.

 

[jillio]

Oh look, how cute... a male catfight.

It looks like to me that the fundamental issue is basically... do you trust your government with your money?

To me, it doesn't really have to do with "fairness" of taxing the wealth.

Looks like those who don't do not want to give any more money to the government and taxing your earnings is just adding fuel to the fire. Or even taking more of their own money is also adding fuel to the fire. They prefer for the government to be MORE efficient with what they have now. If I had that mental state, OF COURSE, I'd be against any additional taxes, especially one where they take more money from the rich. I may be okay with them taxing things that have nothing to do with me.

Those who do trust their government thinks that it's only fair that the rich pay the same or more tax as everyone else. 2% of the population benefits 98% of the population.

The general population tends to think of the nation's inner workings in simple terms, i.e.
"Tax the rich more and give it to the poor? That is just wrong!"

When you make it simple like that, OF COURSE, it is wrong.

"The rich keeps more of their money while the government takes more out of the middle class and lower class? That is just wrong!"

When you make it simple like that, OF COURSE, it is wrong.

When are people going to realize that the way the nation's economy works isn't that simple? I know it isn't that simple. So I tend to ignore those comments. To me, all the comments made simply comes from whether they trust the government or not with their money. (Or they want to be greedy and keep all of their own money, but I'm going to ignore that group)

I have a question for those who do not trust the way the government spends their money. What would make you trust them? If everything goes well? Would that make that make you more open about raising taxes or a tax change? Or do you believe that whatever tax revenues they have now is sufficient? If so, until when? Forever? Or do you believe tax revenues should only come from people who have vices such as smoking?

Thank you DD. You have gotten the gist of the purpose of this thread and are going the direction I intended it. Think about your ideas and beliefs, and then support them with sound economic principles that will show that your belief is a realistic one.

Unfortunately, I have read this entire thread, and have seen only one or two posts that do anything more than spout the same old belief without being able to state why it is they believe that way and support the factual nature of that belief. Which leads me to believe that most people choose their vote based on an emotional response rather than an informed, logical, and thought out response.

 

[Reba]

Thank you DD. You have gotten the gist of the purpose of this thread and are going the direction I intended it. Think about your ideas and beliefs, and then support them with sound economic principles that will show that your belief is a realistic one.

Unfortunately, I have read this entire thread, and have seen only one or two posts that do anything more than spout the same old belief without being able to state why it is they believe that way and support the factual nature of that belief. Which leads me to believe that most people choose their vote based on an emotional response rather than an informed, logical, and thought out response.

What are the responses from the actual voters? Their thought process is really the only one that counts. The rest of us are only speculating because we don't have the same input that the Washington voters had.

We don't know how informed or emotional the Washington voters were.

 

[jillio]

What are the responses from the actual voters? Their thought process is really the only one that counts. The rest of us are only speculating because we don't have the same input that the Washington voters had.

We don't know how informed or emotional the Washington voters were.

Your perspective is restricted. That incident was used an example. An example is effective for indicating what the thought processes of an individual are by the way they respond to an example.

 

[netrox]

Jillo, you should read this article:

"Political scientist Dr David Runciman gives his view on why there is often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.

Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms.

What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.

Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.

But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%."

BBC News - Why do people vote against their own interests?


Remember, they are NOT capable of reasoning and understanding facts. They're more persuaded by personal stories, not facts.

 

[Reba]

Your perspective is restricted. That incident was used an example. An example is effective for indicating what the thought processes of an individual are by the way they respond to an example.

You asked about the thought process of a restricted group of people (Washington voters) for a restricted situation (voting on a state income tax). The answer would be restricted to that group and that situation, and whatever input they had available to them.

It certainly wasn't a scientific survey. All we could do with our restricted information was to give restricted guesses and suppositions. It proves nothing.

If anything, the whole question was slanted by the way it was asked.

"Someone, please explain to me the rationale that made people vote down such a reasonable and fair solution."

That's making a presumption that the state tax would be "such a reasonable and fair solution."

That might be your opinion but it's not everyone's opinion.

 

[TXgolfer]

And what portion of the population do you think those taxes will be coming from? The wealthier and more mobile. So your argument about an income tax punishing the rich is moot.

The portion that uses the roads...

 

[TXgolfer]

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%."
.

Bad legislation is bad legislation. How responsible of these people to see that though the plan may benefit them personally it is a bad deal for the country long term.

CHIP | Children's Medicaid *shrug*

 

[jillio]

Jillo, you should read this article:

"Political scientist Dr David Runciman gives his view on why there is often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.

Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms.

What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.

Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.

But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%."

BBC News - Why do people vote against their own interests?


Remember, they are NOT capable of reasoning and understanding facts. They're more persuaded by personal stories, not facts.

Thanks, I'll check it out. That is the perspective I am coming from...people do not use reasoning and fact. They use emotion based on anecdote that may or may not be accurate to make their political decisions.

 

[jillio]

Bad legislation is bad legislation. How responsible of these people to see that though the plan may benefit them personally it is a bad deal for the country long term.

CHIP | Children's Medicaid *shrug*

How exactly is it a bad deal for the country long term? Lack of medical care is a bad deal for the country long term. You are going to have to be more specific.

 

[Reba]

Thanks, I'll check it out. That is the perspective I am coming from...people do not use reasoning and fact. They use emotion based on anecdote that may or may not be accurate to make their political decisions.

Which "people?" All people? Do you include yourself?