Pages: [1] 2 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: California Initiative Would Raise Alcohol Taxes Up to 12,775% (Read 4627 times)
|
|
anon37268573
|
California Initiative Would Raise Alcohol Taxes Up to 12,775% http://blogs.ocweekly.com/stickaforkinit/indigestion/initiative-would-raise-alcohol/Apparently, the logic is that the government decides to spend $xUSD/yr in response to alcohol consumption (or things that it decides are related to alcohol consumption). Therefor, the government should raise taxes on alcohol equivalent to the amount of money the government normally decides it does spend, and should spend, related to alcohol consumption according to government statistics and studies. BTW, as a New Hampshirite, I'm jealous of the ease at which Californian can do statewide ballot initiatives. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
Because its worked so well for California?
The statewide ballot initiatives aren't hurting CA much. It's usually the local votes. Most tax/spending increases that the voters vote on pass. Sorry CA. If this passes, maybe folks will drive from CA to NH to buy drinks? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
anon37268573
|
The statewide ballot initiatives aren't hurting CA much. It's usually the local votes. Most tax/spending increases that the voters vote on pass. Sorry CA. If this passes, maybe folks will drive from CA to NH to buy drinks?
It's direct democracy. I like that. It's relatively easy to give 20-30 politicians bribes to buy their votes through any number of legal means in America. But, you can't bribe every single citizen in a state. So, theoretically, with a general election ballot initiative the matter can be argued, discussed, and voted on, all in a logical manner. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Direct Democracies tend to crash over very short periods of time, which is why the Framers chose a constitutional republic format.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
Direct Democracies tend to crash over very short periods of time, which is why the Framers chose a constitutional republic format.
Depends who you ask.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
It's direct democracy. I like that. It's relatively easy to give 20-30 politicians bribes to buy their votes through any number of legal means in America. But, you can't bribe every single citizen in a state. So, theoretically, with a general election ballot initiative the matter can be argued, discussed, and voted on, all in a logical manner.
I'm pretty sure the NH small town system is much better described as direct democracy than the CA system. This system seems to work ok for small towns but I don't see it working as well for states. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
For the most part. The problems with direct democracy appear at town meetings also. Most towns do not have a building large enough to hold all the voters should they wish to attend deliberations.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
anon37268573
|
I'm pretty sure the NH small town system is much better described as direct democracy than the CA system. This system seems to work ok for small towns but I don't see it working as well for states.
There are a number of things that have majority support but that the government will not allow to happen. For example, marijuana legalization. A state ballot initiative system could help the will of the people prevail in such situations. I find being told what I can and can't do by a majority of my peers slightly less distasteful than being told what I can and can't do by a small group of privileged career politicians. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
There are a number of things that have majority support but that the government will not allow to happen. For example, marijuana legalization. A state ballot initiative system could help the will of the people prevail in such situations.
If the voters of a bunch of towns voted to do this, that would go a long way toward the state politicians changing the law. Also, the towns voters could decide to make this the lowest priority and similar stuff, likely. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
KDus
|
The guy at my favorite store says he's having a tough time because people are buying cheap boose these days.
What a great way to stimulate the economy, doubling the cost of a six pack.....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Polemic
|
BTW, as a New Hampshirite, I'm jealous of the ease at which Californian can do statewide ballot initiatives.
Ah, interesting story. History of our initiative process: http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/History_of_Initiative_and_Referendum_in_CaliforniaIt oozes political fanboy bias, but has most of the meat, including Prop 13, one of my favorites. One thing the article glosses over is that our state wide right of initiative was created by initiative. Self-creating. Such a dangerous weapon that invites the tyranny of the mob, but also might accomplish what politicians cannot. How do you guys think it would fare in the hands of New Hampshirites? Are they mature enough not to shoot themselves in the foot? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Optimists proclaim that we live in the best of all possible worlds; pessimists fear that this is true."
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Not any more than others.
Prop 13 is the one that made me laugh. During his campaign, he touted Warren Buffet as financial advisor. Buffet suggested property taxes as being one of the better formats. Buffet explained that property tax allows for determining 'what' government services should be provided, what those 'services' will cost, then taxing accordingly. He warned that other formats cycled up and down creating government expansion of programs during good economic times, that would result in politically hard choices that would not be made during bad economic times.
And guess what... Buffet turned out to be correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TANSTAAFL76
|
The initiative process only works if you have a healthy court system that can assure the protection of individuals' rights, otherwise it's mob rule. But courts need money to operate, where are you going to get it? Through taxation. What kind is most fair? That is a subject that libertarians will argue with each other over for many years to come.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
|
|
|
|
BigJoe
|
But courts need money to operate, where are you going to get it? Through taxation.
why would you automatically assume 'through taxation'? Your argument is not logical. Replace 'courts' with any other good/service 'roads need money to operate' 'schools need money to operate' 'libraries need money to operate.' Do you think that we NEED taxation to fund them? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
