my platform as presidential candidate - what's yours?
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2024 14:50
VIEWED: 27072
PAGE 9 of 27
You live in Wisconsin where most food isn't taxed unless it is prepared. That's a state tax, and not the norm as far as I know.
Unless the laws have changed in Wisconsin, that includes soda and junk food. It did when I lived there, anyhow. You're going to have a huge uphill battle getting those taxed because you'd be fighting huge companies like Coke, Pepsi and Nestle. They haven't even been able to remove soda and junk food from SNAP benefits, which are completely untaxed, because of this. Arguments that I've heard are that it's too difficult, which is bullshit, because they managed to do it just fine with alcohol and cigarettes.
I agree that restaurants should be classed as luxury tax in the scenario.
I'm on the fence about pets. I don't own one, but I feel that's an entirely different conversation. There are a lot of health benefits for people who own them, particularly mental and emotional health.
I agree with the Cable TV as well. Luxury.
Basic internet plans should be considered a utility today though, so not luxury. The luxury taxes should only be applied to any additional costs for higher tier plans. (Cost of the higher tier plan, minus the cost of the basic plan before luxury taxes are applied).
You're going to have to be more clear on what you consider "non-luxury rent/mortgage" at only $400 per month. Unless you're living in the middle of nowhere, those prices are section 8 prices. Hell, I don't have rent or a mortgage, but when you factor in property taxes and insurance alone, I'm still paying nearly $200 per month just to live in my paid for house.
I'd be willing to bet that if you wanted to live in the seediest parts of Gary, IN, you could probably pull off $400/mo. But I don't think that living somewhere where there is a reasonable expectation that you won't be burglarized or murdered on any given day is a luxury.
And my property tax rate is cheap in my state. Much cheaper than many other states. I've already had this argument with Second before and proved that because of the differences between state and local taxing authorities, two houses that are valued at the same amount in two different states could see as much as a 300% difference in tax rates. Would we need to start talking that poor people could only live in certain states? If you argue "yes" for this, how do you suppose one would go about moving all of these people and setting them up with their new lives?
I have no clue where you're getting that $50/mo. figure for medical and dental insurance either. Full time employees making $11.50/hr where I work have to pay at least $130 per month for this insurance, and the cost goes up for better plans and additional family members added.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I agree with the Cable TV as well. Luxury."
Not a 'concept' discussion but - people who live in hilly areas, or remote areas, lost signal with the switch to digital, or never had over-the-air signal at all. I never had cable. But after the switch I completely lost over-the-air signal. So I tried 2 or 3 antennas that supposedly let you pick it up and go w/out TV service and they don't work. Some people need a version of cable just to have any TV at all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I agree with the Cable TV as well. Luxury."
Not a 'concept' discussion but - people who live in hilly areas, or remote areas, lost signal with the switch to digital, or never had over-air signal at all. After the switch I completely lost over-air signal. So I tried 2 or 3 antennas that supposedly let you pick it up and go w/out TV service and they don't work. Some people need a version of cable to have TV at all.
Yeah. I get that.
I guess I don't have much sympathy though since I've never even owned a TV that was capable of getting the HD stations after they made the switch and I never got a box for it either. I've been without any form of TV or Cable since around 2007.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't have any true disagreement with anything you said.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You live in Wisconsin where most food isn't taxed unless it is prepared. That's a state tax, and not the norm as far as I know.
Unless the laws have changed in Wisconsin, that includes soda and junk food. It did when I lived there, anyhow. You're going to have a huge uphill battle getting those taxed because you'd be fighting huge companies like Coke, Pepsi and Nestle. They haven't even been able to remove soda and junk food from SNAP benefits, which are completely untaxed, because of this. Arguments that I've heard are that it's too difficult, which is bullshit, because they managed to do it just fine with alcohol and cigarettes.
I agree that restaurants should be classed as luxury tax in the scenario.
I'm on the fence about pets. I don't own one, but I feel that's an entirely different conversation. There are a lot of health benefits for people who own them, particularly mental and emotional health.
I agree with the Cable TV as well. Luxury.
Basic internet plans should be considered a utility today though, so not luxury. The luxury taxes should only be applied to any additional costs for higher tier plans. (Cost of the higher tier plan, minus the cost of the basic plan before luxury taxes are applied).
You're going to have to be more clear on what you consider "non-luxury rent/mortgage" at only $400 per month. Unless you're living in the middle of nowhere, those prices are section 8 prices. Hell, I don't have rent or a mortgage, but when you factor in property taxes and insurance alone, I'm still paying nearly $200 per month just to live in my paid for house.
I'd be willing to bet that if you wanted to live in the seediest parts of Gary, IN, you could probably pull off $400/mo. But I don't think that living somewhere where there is a reasonable expectation that you won't be burglarized or murdered on any given day is a luxury.
And my property tax rate is cheap in my state. Much cheaper than many other states. I've already had this argument with Second before and proved that because of the differences between state and local taxing authorities, two houses that are valued at the same amount in two different states could see as much as a 300% difference in tax rates. Would we need to start talking that poor people could only live in certain states? If you argue "yes" for this, how do you suppose one would go about moving all of these people and setting them up with their new lives?
I have no clue where you're getting that $50/mo. figure for medical and dental insurance either. Full time employees making $11.50/hr where I work have to pay at least $130 per month for this insurance, and the cost goes up for better plans and additional family members added.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Whatever grocery is untaxed now in any locality would remain exempt from Consumption Tax. No reprogramming needed, just piggyback the system with a different percentage.
Are pets taxed now? Rue indicated pet food is taxed. Most cats and dogs I know get table scraps. If it is taxed now, that tells you the opinion or viewpoint of your locality right now. I do not disagree with the level of Taxation in whatever Tax Hell anybody chooses to live in.
People have said that they could live on a $1,000 per adult per month stipend. How much rent or mortgage are those people paying, whether or not they are splitting it? $100,000 house is about $1,000 mortgage. $1,000,000 house is about $10,000 mortgage. At some point such a value is beyond bare necessity, and enters the realm of luxury. The same house in LA, DC, Alabama, and North Dakota will have different values. Each State or locality already sets their own Tax rates, and this would continue. If the cheapest 20% of homes in a State or community were at or below a certain price, say $100,000 - then that could be
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because TV disseminates news, current events, children's programming, Emergency Alerts (or Allerts), I assume most would consider it a Bare Necessity. Likely the largest percentage of residents live in metro areas, which would be served by broadcast, and Cable TV would be luxury for them. Communities know what parts of their areas are not in a broadcast reception zone. Whole sections of towns or Counties could be designated Tax exempt for Cable/Dish service. Application would be easy, the service provider writes the bill with no tax, has the address right there - more complicated but feasible to show an Antenna Test with no reception at that location. Basic level, or Base Package, would be the Bare Necessity.
Originally posted by rue:
"I agree with the Cable TV as well. Luxury."
Not a 'concept' discussion but - people who live in hilly areas, or remote areas, lost signal with the switch to digital, or never had over-the-air signal at all. I never had cable. But after the switch I completely lost over-the-air signal. So I tried 2 or 3 antennas that supposedly let you pick it up and go w/out TV service and they don't work. Some people need a version of cable just to have any TV at all.
But the majority of the Population would still be taxed for Cable within a Broadcast Reception Zone. Broadcasters do make effort to reach as much people as possible, to saturate their area.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Grocery Tax.
14 States Tax Grocery.
Tax grocery at the full rate: AL, HI, ID, KS, MS, OK, SD.
Tax grocery at a lower rate: TN 5.5%, WV 5%, AR 3%, VA 1.5 - 2.5%, UT 1.75%, MO 1.225%, IL 1%.
All other States do not Tax grocery, from what I can see. But I think definitions of "grocery" are set by each State.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I just found out that 2 doors from mine, the house recently got bought for $25,000. That would be a $250 monthly mortgage payment. This is about 20-30 steps away.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You live in Wisconsin where most food isn't taxed unless it is prepared. That's a state tax, and not the norm as far as I know.
Unless the laws have changed in Wisconsin, that includes soda and junk food. It did when I lived there, anyhow. You're going to have a huge uphill battle getting those taxed because you'd be fighting huge companies like Coke, Pepsi and Nestle. They haven't even been able to remove soda and junk food from SNAP benefits, which are completely untaxed, because of this. Arguments that I've heard are that it's too difficult, which is bullshit, because they managed to do it just fine with alcohol and cigarettes.
I agree that restaurants should be classed as luxury tax in the scenario.
I'm on the fence about pets. I don't own one, but I feel that's an entirely different conversation. There are a lot of health benefits for people who own them, particularly mental and emotional health.
I agree with the Cable TV as well. Luxury.
Basic internet plans should be considered a utility today though, so not luxury. The luxury taxes should only be applied to any additional costs for higher tier plans. (Cost of the higher tier plan, minus the cost of the basic plan before luxury taxes are applied).
You're going to have to be more clear on what you consider "non-luxury rent/mortgage" at only $400 per month. Unless you're living in the middle of nowhere, those prices are section 8 prices. Hell, I don't have rent or a mortgage, but when you factor in property taxes and insurance alone, I'm still paying nearly $200 per month just to live in my paid for house.
I'd be willing to bet that if you wanted to live in the seediest parts of Gary, IN, you could probably pull off $400/mo. But I don't think that living somewhere where there is a reasonable expectation that you won't be burglarized or murdered on any given day is a luxury.
And my property tax rate is cheap in my state. Much cheaper than many other states. I've already had this argument with Second before and proved that because of the differences between state and local taxing authorities, two houses that are valued at the same amount in two different states could see as much as a 300% difference in tax rates. Would we need to start talking that poor people could only live in certain states? If you argue "yes" for this, how do you suppose one would go about moving all of these people and setting them up with their new lives?
I have no clue where you're getting that $50/mo. figure for medical and dental insurance either. Full time employees making $11.50/hr where I work have to pay at least $130 per month for this insurance, and the cost goes up for better plans and additional family members added.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
The neighborhood? In the opposite direction, there are 2 doors between me and the High School, about 100 steps. The better High School, on the good side of town.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I just found out that 2 doors from mine, the house recently got bought for $25,000. That would be a $250 monthly mortgage payment. This is about 20-30 steps away.
The neighborhood? In the opposite direction, there are 2 doors between me and the High School, about 100 steps. The better High School, on the good side of town.
Damn dude. You must live in a pretty sketchy part of town, or that was a foreclosure that is rotting away and had all the pipes taken out or something. $25,000 for a house in Milwaukee? That's borderline Detroit prices.
Just wondering... are you saying that any homes valued under $100,000 should be exempt from property taxes, and/or any value of a home that is under $100,000 on pricey homes should be taxed only above the first $100,000?
I could get on board with that. Even after I reduced my property taxes to less than half of what they were when I moved here, the property taxes that I do pay are around 10% of my net pay for the year, and my home hovers just around $100,000 in value as far as the taxing authority is concerned.
That would free up a nice chunk of change. Most of that money goes to fund schools that I'll never be putting any kids through.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That might be true about Milwaukee, but I live in Green Bay. That house is 60% larger than my 3-bedroom, and it is 2-story, so likely 3 or 4 bedroom.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I just found out that 2 doors from mine, the house recently got bought for $25,000. That would be a $250 monthly mortgage payment. This is about 20-30 steps away.
The neighborhood? In the opposite direction, there are 2 doors between me and the High School, about 100 steps. The better High School, on the good side of town.
Damn dude. You must live in a pretty sketchy part of town, or that was a foreclosure that is rotting away and had all the pipes taken out or something. $25,000 for a house in Milwaukee? That's borderline Detroit prices.
Just wondering... are you saying that any homes valued under $100,000 should be exempt from property taxes, and/or any value of a home that is under $100,000 on pricey homes should be taxed only above the first $100,000?
I could get on board with that. Even after I reduced my property taxes to less than half of what they were when I moved here, the property taxes that I do pay are around 10% of my net pay for the year, and my home hovers just around $100,000 in value as far as the taxing authority is concerned.
That would free up a nice chunk of change. Most of that money goes to fund schools that I'll never be putting any kids through.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Regarding the $100,000 that is the example I gave. The specific number for that threshold would depend upon where it is. Think Orange County, or KY, or Dallas, or boonies South Dakota. On the other hand, if you choose a community which taxes all property, even basic necessities, then you choose to pay those taxes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:That might be true about Milwaukee, but I live in Green Bay. That house is 60% larger than my 3-bedroom, and it is 2-story, so likely 3 or 4 bedroom.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I just found out that 2 doors from mine, the house recently got bought for $25,000. That would be a $250 monthly mortgage payment. This is about 20-30 steps away.
The neighborhood? In the opposite direction, there are 2 doors between me and the High School, about 100 steps. The better High School, on the good side of town.
Damn dude. You must live in a pretty sketchy part of town, or that was a foreclosure that is rotting away and had all the pipes taken out or something. $25,000 for a house in Milwaukee? That's borderline Detroit prices.
Just wondering... are you saying that any homes valued under $100,000 should be exempt from property taxes, and/or any value of a home that is under $100,000 on pricey homes should be taxed only above the first $100,000?
I could get on board with that. Even after I reduced my property taxes to less than half of what they were when I moved here, the property taxes that I do pay are around 10% of my net pay for the year, and my home hovers just around $100,000 in value as far as the taxing authority is concerned.
That would free up a nice chunk of change. Most of that money goes to fund schools that I'll never be putting any kids through.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
So... your house would be only worth about $15,000 by comparison?
That doesn't sound right in Green Bay either.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME