VAT tax, this sucks!!!!!!!!!!!

[eliza61]

1st, I don't tan.
2d, I could have seen this coming. Remember when the government started adding extra taxes to cigarettes? Sold it as a great revenue maker, basically a "sin tax" and by the way since we all know smoking is bad for everyone then the smoker really ought to shoulder more for the medical care they will cause? Non-smokers applauded with a smugness because it wasn't them that would be paying more. Now we see proposals for increased taxes on certain foods, which cars you drive, etc. Once we all accepted that "certain people" should shoulder burdens because of their life choices then we opened the door for EVERY life choice to be targeted. So, today there are a few more, more will be coming. Wonder who will be the person/people who get to decide how all the rest of us should live and ensure that we *pay* for choices they don't agree with? Remember, we were promised *price signals* to make us, the dumb public, change our behaviors....and you thought you were in control of your own life...
3d, I hope that the smug posters who laugh off the concern with a "so don't do X" wake up a realize that today its something they don't care about....are they so sure tomorrow it won't be?

I don't think it's smugness at all. In fact the government can't collect a tax if no one is using the item which you taxed now can they? I've said a number of times, I boycott with my dollar bill. So I have absolutely no problem putting my backside where my mouth is. Tomorrow if they tax some thing that use as a luxury cosmetic item, I will then make the decision whether to continue to purchase it.

Well I am sorry I should have my rights as a parent to decide what is best for my children taken from me because others can’t.

You are absolutely right but in the tanning tax you still have the freedom to tan if you so desire.

 

[eliza61]

Everyone who feels this tanning tax is an outrage,will you still continue to go to the tanning salon. Not including the folks who need the booth for medical reasons but simply cosmetic tanners, if this tax really upsets you, will you give up the tan?

Isn't that what the fine folks in Boston did during the first tea revolution?

 

[Muushka]

Totally agree with you on that one. Unfortunately I think thats a result of us losing our "common" sense. What my dad use to say, throwing the baby out with the bath water. Instead of sensibly thinking up solutions for unhealthy lunches, school administrators are now coming up with these dracion measures.
Remember when school violence started to rise so they came up with the "no exclusions" policy? next thing you know poor little johnny was expelled for launching a spit ball. and hauled out of the classroom between 2 police officers, ti was ridiculous.

So now we're left with huge extremes. Now we are in an "either/or" mentality where nothing gets solved. We have created this unsustainable population but what do we do? One side wants to continue it, the other side wants to simply cut them off and let them die. both scenerios are not a solution, so we flounder.

very tricky to say the least. Ok I think I've highjacked a thread long enough.

Eliza, do you really think that the other side wants these kids to die?

Are you up for a PM??

 

[eliza61]

Eliza, do you really think that the other side wants these kids to die?

Are you up for a PM??

You know you can pm me any ole time!!

forgive me 4 for the hyperbole. some times the rethoric gets ridiculous and I make it worse. but while they may not "want" kids to die, I 100% believe that is exactly what will happen. We unfortunatley (IMO) have a horrible case of "not in my back yard". "As long as my kid can get to a doctor well I'm sorry yours can't but that's not my problem"

I mean I was literally told this in so many words on these boards. I posted for some information about getting help for a church member suffering from colon cancer with no insurance and was told "he was an idiot for not Having any, so that's what happens". and then told people who don't have insurance it's because they refuse to get it so they get whatever happens to them.

So yeah, sorry I do believe there is a entire population of folks who would gladly sit back and let poor people die in the streets just as long as it didn't happen to anyone they knew or it didn't cost them an extra 20 bucks and would turn around and justify it by saying they deserve it for making "bad" choices.

 

[pilferk]

You know it is so amazing and humorous that this topic is so interesting to someone such as yourself that you bothered to discuss it with your Ivy League lawyers just to prove someone wrong on a message board. I personally don’t know any IVY league educated lawyers but I do know a few who were educated at state schools and well I can see them being far too busy to deal with this nonsense. I don’t care what the tanning bed does honestly because I don’t spray tan and they customized a package and price based on my limited need.

I was reading the Disboards. As you can see by my post count...that's not unusual.

I work in healthcare (specifically related to finance), at an ivy league affiliated institution. We're sorta expected to understand this stuff, front to back.

I saw someone who was mistaken and figured I'd pass along information that might be helpful to them. The law is super confusing, and there is a LOT of misinformation out there both about the law and about how it's being funded. I also wanted to make sure others didn't take the information as "truth", since they might not be as "up" on the subject as I'm required to be.

And, since I'm a "nameless/faceless" on the net...I provided a link to the IRS documentation on the subject.

I don't see what's so unusual or amusing about my commenting. I don't think many of us are "professional disney nuts".

 

[wtccheermom]

I was reading the Disboards. As you can see by my post count...that's not unusual.

I work in healthcare (specifically related to finance), at an ivy league affiliated institution. We're sorta expected to understand this stuff, front to back.

I saw someone who was mistaken and figured I'd pass along information that might be helpful to them. The law is super confusing, and there is a LOT of misinformation out there both about the law and about how it's being funded. I also wanted to make sure others didn't take the information as "truth", since they might not be as "up" on the subject as I'm required to be.

And, since I'm a "nameless/faceless" on the net...I provided a link to the IRS documentation on the subject.

I don't see what's so unusual or amusing about my commenting. I don't think many of us are "professional disney nuts".

It just came off as very pretentious and maybe that is not how you meant for it to. I don’t think it would have seemed that way if you would have said that I have spoken to several lawyers as opposed to Ivy League educated lawyers. I understand what you were saying the whole time I was just telling you what was being done at my particular salon and you acted I was making it up or something. Anyway regardless how others feel about tanning I still think it is wrong to charge an extra tax based on the fact that they are trying to encourage people not to do it. I do not need that much government interference in my life.

 

[pilferk]

It just came off as very pretentious and maybe that is not how you meant for it to. I don’t think it would have seemed that way if you would have said that I have spoken to several lawyers as opposed to Ivy League educated lawyers. I understand what you were saying the whole time I was just telling you what was being done at my particular salon and you acted I was making it up or something. Anyway regardless how others feel about tanning I still think it is wrong to charge an extra tax based on the fact that they are trying to encourage people not to do it. I do not need that much government interference in my life.

If you look back and re-read....I only brought up where I received my interpretation from AFTER you brought up you were " sure the accountants they have would argue otherwise. The salon I go to is a chain and a very big one in my state so I am sure that the cooperation that owns the franchise is well aware of what they can legally do and I am sure they are acting within their legal rights."

It wasn't about being pretentious. It was about explaining where the interpretation (other than via the IRS) was coming from.

And I believe I made it apparent I understood what was actually happening on the ground (I don't think you made any of it up). My point was that, while it IS happening...it shouldn't be.

In any event, again, I'll not debate the politics of the law or whether it's "right or wrong". I don't have much of an opinion either way.

Again, I feel like I'm chasing my tail on this piece of the conversation, too. So...again, I'm done.

 

[Karlzmom]

I don't think it's smugness at all. In fact the government can't collect a tax if no one is using the item which you taxed now can they? I've said a number of times, I boycott with my dollar bill. So I have absolutely no problem putting my backside where my mouth is. Tomorrow if they tax some thing that use as a luxury cosmetic item, I will then make the decision whether to continue to purchase it.



You are absolutely right but in the tanning tax you still have the freedom to tan if you so desire.

If you read the begining of my post, I don't use tanning beds, so the tax doesnt' affect me. However, I have a problem with taxes being targeted at *anyone's* behavior. Now that we as Americans have decided that *someone* is the arbiter of proper choices and has the right/ability to punish *wrong choices* its only a matter of time before things that *do* matter to us, individually become the target. So, today you can brush off a tax on a "luxury cosmetic item" b/c it doesn't matter to you. What about if the target changes to something you do value?

 

[disneyjunkie]

How about this one?



http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110411/us_yblog_thelookout/chicago-school-bans-homemade-lunches-the-latest-in-national-food-fight

Apparently these parents cannot be trusted to feed their own children.

Anyone else feel like a frog in warm water?

This is about dollars and cents, nothing more nothing less. That school is just making sure they get their share of the Title 1 money.

Title 1 funding is based on the the income level of the students attending the schoool. You get the family income information from the lunch forms.

If you know that you service a large number of low income students, you ensure that you don't miss out on the extra money by forcing everyone to fill out the lunch forms. How do you force do that? By banning bag lunches.

I've never heard of a public school doing this. However, I have heard of Catholic and charter schools in my area(Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn) requiring students to eat school lunch.

I believe the magic number to get the Title 1 money is 40%.

 

[Muushka]

This is about dollars and cents, nothing more nothing less. That school is just making sure they get their share of the Title 1 money.

Title 1 funding is based on the the income level of the students attending the schoool. You get the family income information from the lunch forms.

If you know that you service a large number of low income students, you ensure that you don't miss out on the extra money by forcing everyone to fill out the lunch forms. How do you force do that? By banning bag lunches.

I've never heard of a public school doing this. However, I have heard of Catholic and charter schools in my area(Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn) requiring students to eat school lunch.

I believe the magic number to get the Title 1 money is 40%.

You are absolutely correct, it is all about the money. But at the same time, they are taking away the parent's responsibilites.

But then, that is nothing new, sadly.

 

[okeydokey]

You know you can pm me any ole time!!

forgive me 4 for the hyperbole. some times the rethoric gets ridiculous and I make it worse. but while they may not "want" kids to die, I 100% believe that is exactly what will happen. We unfortunatley (IMO) have a horrible case of "not in my back yard". "As long as my kid can get to a doctor well I'm sorry yours can't but that's not my problem"

I mean I was literally told this in so many words on these boards. I posted for some information about getting help for a church member suffering from colon cancer with no insurance and was told "he was an idiot for not Having any, so that's what happens". and then told people who don't have insurance it's because they refuse to get it so they get whatever happens to them.

So yeah, sorry I do believe there is a entire population of folks who would gladly sit back and let poor people die in the streets just as long as it didn't happen to anyone they knew or it didn't cost them an extra 20 bucks and would turn around and justify it by saying they deserve it for making "bad" choices.

I know these people. Unfortunately they are my in-laws.