Comment Once again, politics == idiocy (Score 1) 655
Make all the arguments you like: the fact of the matter is the more you tax things, or the higher the rate of taxes you charge, the lower the revenue you will receive. I continue to be incredulous over the fact that politicians, especially those of a more "progressive" bent, fail to understand this basic concept.
Take cigarettes. The state of New York is pulling both ends on the smoking issue. They pay billions of dollars for programs to get people to quit smoking, including advertising and free stop-smoking aids (at taxpayer expense). Yet they look at raising taxes on cigarettes as a way to raise revenue. So what's it going to be? Do you want people to smoke or not? And do you really expect your tax revenue to rise by an increase in cigarette taxes?
The city and the state would be better off doing two things: shut down the useless anti-smoking campaign and cut the taxes on cigarettes. People are going to smoke, no matter what the nanny state does to stop it. The only way to stop smoking is to force quitting on the public by making tobacco possession and use illegal -- and we all know how well prohibition worked. They would be better off killing a useless program and allowing people to buy more cigarettes at a lower tax rate, because this would have the immediate effect of increasing tax revenues. That money could then be redirected to health and education.
This is the same situation that occurs with the transit system when ridership drops. The MTA gives in to union demands for high wages and benefits, even though there's less revenue coming in. Services have to be cut, which means you're paying people to sit around and do nothing. The only solution is to raise fares. Raise fares and riders will leave the system and find another way to get to work. And other than the "discounts" the MTA offered people for using the electronic Metrocards, I don't recall a time when they actually lowered the fare. Maybe trying this as an experiment would be interesting. Lower the fare - more people ride - more revenue comes in - as ridership increases, demand for services increase -- add back the services you cut -- more people ride -- revenue increases. What a vicious cycle.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who will argue that this doesn't work, but since it never gets tried, I suppose we'll never know, will we? Instead, all other aspects of the lives of New Yorkers are going to be burdened with higher costs.
Which is why I'm glad I abandoned that place 30 years ago.
Take cigarettes. The state of New York is pulling both ends on the smoking issue. They pay billions of dollars for programs to get people to quit smoking, including advertising and free stop-smoking aids (at taxpayer expense). Yet they look at raising taxes on cigarettes as a way to raise revenue. So what's it going to be? Do you want people to smoke or not? And do you really expect your tax revenue to rise by an increase in cigarette taxes?
The city and the state would be better off doing two things: shut down the useless anti-smoking campaign and cut the taxes on cigarettes. People are going to smoke, no matter what the nanny state does to stop it. The only way to stop smoking is to force quitting on the public by making tobacco possession and use illegal -- and we all know how well prohibition worked. They would be better off killing a useless program and allowing people to buy more cigarettes at a lower tax rate, because this would have the immediate effect of increasing tax revenues. That money could then be redirected to health and education.
This is the same situation that occurs with the transit system when ridership drops. The MTA gives in to union demands for high wages and benefits, even though there's less revenue coming in. Services have to be cut, which means you're paying people to sit around and do nothing. The only solution is to raise fares. Raise fares and riders will leave the system and find another way to get to work. And other than the "discounts" the MTA offered people for using the electronic Metrocards, I don't recall a time when they actually lowered the fare. Maybe trying this as an experiment would be interesting. Lower the fare - more people ride - more revenue comes in - as ridership increases, demand for services increase -- add back the services you cut -- more people ride -- revenue increases. What a vicious cycle.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who will argue that this doesn't work, but since it never gets tried, I suppose we'll never know, will we? Instead, all other aspects of the lives of New Yorkers are going to be burdened with higher costs.
Which is why I'm glad I abandoned that place 30 years ago.
