Like tobacco, carbon emissions and sugar, we can expect the harm to human health and the environment caused by the production and consumption of meat to be mitigated by 'sin taxes'in the next five to ten years.
"Sin taxes" on meat to reduce its huge impact on climate change and human health look inevitable, according to analysts for investors managing more than $4tn of assets.The global livestock industry causes 15% of all global greenhouse gas emissions and meat consumption is rising around the world, but dangerous climate change cannot be avoided unless this is radically curbed. Furthermore, many people already eat far too much meat, seriously damaging their health and incurring huge costs. Livestock also drive other problems, such as water pollution and antibiotic resistance.A new analysis from the investor network Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (Fairr) Initiative argues that meat is therefore now following the same path as tobacco, carbon emissions and sugar towards a sin tax, a levy on harmful products to cut consumption. Meat taxes have already been discussed in parliaments in Germany, Denmark and Sweden, the analysis points out, and China's government has cut its recommended maximum meat consumption by 45% in 2016.
"Sin taxes" on meat to reduce its huge impact on climate change and human health look inevitable, according to analysts for investors managing more than $4tn of assets.
The global livestock industry causes 15% of all global greenhouse gas emissions and meat consumption is rising around the world, but dangerous climate change cannot be avoided unless this is radically curbed. Furthermore, many people already eat far too much meat, seriously damaging their health and incurring huge costs. Livestock also drive other problems, such as water pollution and antibiotic resistance.
A new analysis from the investor network Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (Fairr) Initiative argues that meat is therefore now following the same path as tobacco, carbon emissions and sugar towards a sin tax, a levy on harmful products to cut consumption. Meat taxes have already been discussed in parliaments in Germany, Denmark and Sweden, the analysis points out, and China's government has cut its recommended maximum meat consumption by 45% in 2016.
Would you pay a "meat tax" or would you change your eating habits?
They tax my paycheck, they tax again on whatever's remaining when I buy something, they tax my water, then they tax what goes down the sewer after drinking my taxed water. They probably taxed me when I was born, and they'll probably tax me when I die. Tax tax tax fucking tax tax. OK, I'm done, time to light up a non-taxed doobie.
The solution to one of those taxes is pee-cycling!
In my community they assume that all water entering the home leaves via the sewer. They simply make the effluent volume for tax purposes match the water intake, which eliminates (heh!) the need for a gauge on the sewer flow. No effort is made to account for things like irrigation, which is a major portion of water use in my city. So recycle your pee all you want, you're still getting double taxed for it - both times on the way in.
Of course, you could look at it another way; if you figure out a way to pee directly into your sewer line w/o needing to flush you could get free use of the sewer by drinking most of your water elsewhere. Of course, get too aggressive about this and they'll get mad at you for not "doing your part" to contribute to the water line maintenance. I guarantee that they won't let you connect to the sewer w/o connecting to city water as well...
Damn! Now you make me want to find a way of 'burying' myself in the sewer system: if you have to pay for it anyway, it's a cheap funeral. BAWOOOOOSH, "bye Daddy!":)
tax me when I die
Oh look, more of this horse shit. 90% of Americans will pay ZERO estate taxes when a parent dies. If your parent left an estate large enough to qualify for estate taxes YOU CAN FUCKING AFFORD TO PAY THEM.
So, from everyone who actually has to WORK for a living, please, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Thanks.
Tax tax tax fucking tax tax.
OK, then don't ever do any of the following:+ Drive on public roads+ Call the police+ Call the fire department (unless you live out in the sticks where a "fire protection fee" is required, in which case feel free to call if you have paid that fee)+ Go to the doctor/hospital with health insurance (Health insurance is subsidized by the government)++ Feel free to go if you plan on paying 100% out of pocket+ Put your kids into public school+ Purchase food at a grocery store (it's all been inspected by the FDA)++ You can still buy food at a farmer's market/out of the back of a truck+ Purchase medication at a pharmacy (FDA again)++ You can still purchase "medication" on a street corner or out of the back of a truck+ Purchase alcoholic beverages from a liquor store (FDA again AFAIK, but I could be wrong on this one)+ Monetary transactions involving a bank or credit union (FDIC)+ Own a house connected to a municipal water supply+ Own a house connected to a municipal sewer line+ Own a house with trash/recyclable pickup service+ Hunt or fish anywhere that requires a hunting or fishing license+ Do I need to continue?
So, to summarize: STFU, GTFO, and go live in Somalia. You will pay ZERO taxes there. (Unless you consider the warlord-of-the-week's "protection fee" a tax, in which case, I can't really help you.) Otherwise, STFU and help pay for the society you're living in you fucking leech.
Do I need to continue?
Yep. I'm not interested in a third of that and actively oppose another third of it. Regardless, taxes are not collected here on a voluntary, usage-based basis. They're collected under threat of death or imprisonment. So your entire "but you get stuff" argument is irrelevant.
The IRS is equipted with AK47s, right?
Dunno. They sure bought a hell of a lot of ammo over the twenty-teens though.
Regardless, try not paying your taxes and see what happens. I guarantee you'll meet up with armed men wanting to imprison or kill you, depending on your reception to the idea of imprisonment.
The flat tax seems like a good option, paired with probably a few other things. Know why we can't easily play around with such models? The insanely rich don't want to rock the boat.
I thought the problem was that legislators from the Democrat party consider a flat tax "regressive", and prefer the current system of tax percentage increasing with income?
As I understand it, the reasoning goes that poor people are already spending the largest fraction of their income (compared to the middle class and the rich) for essentials like food, housing, and transportation. There simply isn't much left for them to give taxes from. A flat tax would spread the class divide further.
Interestingly, many plans that claim to be a "flat tax" are some of the most deviously *progressive* systems I've ever seen. Basically, you do a flat tax with an exemption -- for example, you might pay a 50% tax rate, but pay no taxes on the first $50k earned. So if you earn less than $50k, you pay nothing; if you earn $100k, you pay 25%, if you earn ten million, you pay 49.5%. That's the best proposed tax plan I've ever seen, assuming reasonable values for the exemption and percentage. Wipe out all other exemptions and brackets and replace the whole tax code with one simple equation -- taxes owed = (total income - 50k) * 50%
That's no longer a flat tax.
It's a two-bracket progressive tax.
You might as well do away with income taxes at that point and use sales taxes, with exemptions for basic necessities such as food and medical items.
AR-15s, but close enough.
It's OK if you don't want to be a citizen, you do you better than anyone. But you really should be honest with yourself (and others) about it.
You are mistaking government for business. This is the fundamental error made by neoliberals, neocons, and fascists. While both normally deal with money and services, they have different reasons for existing. I repeat, money is a different raison d'être than service.
+ Monetary transactions involving a bank or credit union (FDIC)The FDIC is funded by bank premiums not taxes+ Own a house connected to a municipal water supply+ Own a house connected to a municipal sewer linePaid through user fees not tax+ Own a house with trash/recyclable pickup servicePaid through HOA for private pickup
Maybe where you live. Not where I live. Rates and taxes all the way.
Right idea but your number is WAY off.It's more like 99.95 percent.The current threshold is $5.5 million--or $11 million for married couples. [google.com]
Reactionaries (who consume the crap coming out of Faux Noise|Breitbart) like to call it The Death Tax.(Dead people don't pay taxes.)A better name would be The Spoiled Rich Kids' Tax.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
The trouble isn't just that.
It's that it amounts to a corporate giveaway.
If it's a family where the assets are mostly liquid, they shrug their shoulders, take a short term loan secured with some bonds or something, and pay it off. Done.
The real screwups are the land rich/cash poor family farms that aren't incorporated, and get torn up. This is an actively supported mechanism for breaking those up because of a pro-corporate bias in the government. The families have to sell their single major asset at firesale prices, or go into deep debt (that will probably break them) just to satisfy the tax man.
I'll support estate taxes the very nanosecond they force all corporations to pay the exact same taxes, at the exact same rate, every 30 years as counted from their date of incorporation. Non-profits and co-ops as well.
Until then it's a pro-corporate shakedown and we shouldn't support that.
+ Put your kids into public school
I recommend not doing this regardless of your political views, because our public school system is an absolute abomination. Private schools are usually not much better. Homeschooling and self-education is preferable, if you put in the effort. Even people who receive a low-quality education about evolution because their parents are religious loonies might be better educated in other areas.
+ Purchase alcoholic beverages from a liquor store (FDA again AFAIK, but I could be wrong on this one)
Just so you can get it right next time: Bottled alcoholic beverages fall under BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). The fact that booze falls under BATFE is why your alcoholic beverages aren't required to have nutritional information labels on them. (And of course alcoholic beverages served at restaurants fall under what local departments inspect restaurants in that area.)