- The taxes on the left amount to ~75% of the cost of the 98 cases of soda.
- The taxes on the right amount to ~61% of the cost of the 44 cases of soda.
Ever heard of "confiscatory" tax rates?
Those receipts are the result of state and local governments being cowed into legislating a "per unit" (e.g., 1 can of soda) tax. In this case, it's the Food Police who cowed those politicians to impose what are called "soda taxes."
Why? To dissuade folks from consuming high-sugar/fructose drinks with the result they grow obese, are eventually diagnosed with diabetes and other weight-related diseases, and end up costing taxpayers billions of $$$s in healthcare bills. Since the folks can't control themselves, the politicians are cowed into doing the next best thing: Tax those folks into oblivion.
Yes, when there's centralized healthcare--like Obamacare--the masses pay for the bad choices of the few. So, to limit the cost to the masses and to regulate the bad behavior of the few, those politicians stick it to the few by imposing confiscatory taxes ("sin taxes") on them. Think: Pavlov's dogs.
- To promote better health, impose a substantial tax, the goal being to alter behavior those politicians have deemed bad.
- Yes, folks can still engage in that bad behavior, but they'll pay mightily for it.
However, that tax is highly regressive, meaning the folks with less income pay a higher %'age of disposable income for the exact same item that costs folks with a higher income a lower %'age of disposable income. For example, a lower-income individual with $10 in the wallet pays $2 (or 20%) for a can of soda while a higher-income individual with $100 in the wallet pays $2 (or 2%) for the same can of soda.
So, the high-income folks can enjoy all of the soda they want. But, low-income folks can't...unless they can come up with an alternative source of $$$s or find a black market in soda.
The issue isn't that confiscatory taxes represent the kind of taxes communist and socialist politicians impose upon their sheeple. No, the issue is that the Food Police--along with those of their ilk, like the folks on the liberal Left who claim to champion the rights of the poor--argue against the "flat tax" which would tax all folks at the same rate. They characterize the flat tax as "highly regressive"--which it is--and unduly negative for lower-income folks because it would take a higher %'age of real $$$s from those making lower salaries and a lower %'age of real $$$s from those making higher salaries--which it does.
Sound good on paper. Yet, the Food Police--and those of their ilk on the liberal Left--care so much about the health of lower-income folks that they don't want those folks to enjoy a lousy can of soda. But, they claim those same folks should pay less in taxes? How is the soda tax taxing lower-income folks at a lesser rate?
The logic is stunning.
Let the discussion begin...