|
thoughts on SF prop H? https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Establishment_of_a_Public_Advocate_Office_Amendment,_Proposition_H_(November_2016) Kuvo fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Nov 7, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
Drifter posted:I don't like calling alcohol and cigarette taxes 'sin'/vice taxes because it implies that they're taxed because of jealousy or some poo poo. Alcohol and cigs are shown to actually hurt people unrelated to their use. We should ban their public use, but that's just a dumb idea that would never work. Taxes on cigs and alcohol and I guess the soda tax are sort of like a gasoline tax...they help offset the cost of damage done through their use - it's just helping with longer term economic costs. Except they're taxed to excise the use (ideally) rather than to maintain use, in the case of gas and road infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
lancemantis posted:They could have just made a website with this in gigantic font as aesthetics and property values are the real reasons behind their entire arguments. I wonder what they think will happen to their property values when the entire loving neighborhood burns down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
No but you seequote:Claim: Eucalyptus trees pose a greater fire danger than other trees. quote:Analysis: The plan will not eliminate fire “fuel load” but instead render it highly flammable. Healthy, moisture-rich, fire-resistant trees are to be chopped down and chipped, their remains spread about sun-scorched hillsides at a depth of up to two feet, creating carpets of dried out tinder throughout the hills. According to David Maloney, former Oakland firefighter and Chief of Fire Prevention at the Oakland Army base, "Fire Science has proven that every living tree - regardless of its species - due to its moisture content and canopy coverage of ground fuelscontributes to wildfire hazard mitigation." (http://goo.gl/hm9Jp8.) For example, fog drip falling from Monterey Pines in the East Bay has been measured at over 10 inches per year. In San Francisco, fog drip in the Eucalyptus forest was measured at over 16 inches per year. Screw what plenty of Australians know and the National Park Services own studies say, I have freshman level comparisons and some anecdotal opinions
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Kuvo posted:thoughts on SF prop H? The League of Women Voters supports it and Dianne Feinstein opposes it, so it sounds like a slam dunk yes vote to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's weird how "The people who use government services should be the ones who pay for them" is a libertarian pipe dream, except when ostensible liberals are paternalistically slapping the wrists of the poor, $2 per pack at a time. Please do explain how a libertarian utopia would ensure that medical bills for lifelong smokers would be placed on the shoulders of those who incur them. Would they make sure the cost of cigarettes are high, like is proposed, even though they're cheap to manufacture and cigarette companies would gladly underprice their product to get people addicted? Or would they eliminate taxpayer-funded medical care and force the poor to either pay their outrageously expensive American medical bills themselves, or try and get insurance they can't afford because it isn't regulated and the industry has ridiculously high premiums and pre-existing conditions? Either way, I'd love to hear you justify how that way of government is fairer and more responsible to the least fortunate among us than those mean liberals and their awful nanny state tsk-tsking at them for their body-destroying chemical habit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Do the same for wine Oh wait it's currently fashionable w/ rich people? Well nevermind then
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:Do the same for wine https://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub92.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
Yes, however: Alcoholic Beverage Tax Categories Rate Per Wine Gallon (231 cubic in => 3.785L) July 15, 1991 – Present Distilled Spirits (100 proof or less) $3.30 Distilled Spirits (over 100 proof) $6.60 Beer $0.20 Wine $0.20 Sparkling hard cider $0.20 Champagne and sparkling wine $0.30 At that rate for wine it works out to about $0.04 per 750ml bottle, or less than half the CRV for the bottle itself. So like I said...
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:Yes, however: Yeah but your comment made it seem like we didn't tax wine because the rich like it, when that doesn't seem true at all. Progressive JPEG posted:Do the same for wine
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:Yes, however: Feel free to write the proposition, then, you edgy thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
I'm saying tax it at lets say $1/bottle rather than $0.04/bottle
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:I'm saying tax it at lets say $1/bottle rather than $0.04/bottle Considering the price at which wine is normally bought by rich people, that is most definitely a regressive tax.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
Three Buck Chuck just doesn't have the same ring to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Speaking of CRV, let's crank that poo poo up to a dollar. Be a real shot in the arm for the people who go around collecting cans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Speaking of CRV, let's crank that poo poo up to a dollar. Be a real shot in the arm for the people who go around collecting cans. I'd actually like to hear about the consequences of doing something like this, perhaps as an alternative to a soda tax.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Does anyone have any thoughts on Scott Wiener vs. Jane Kim?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:I'd actually like to hear about the consequences of doing something like this, perhaps as an alternative to a soda tax. The main problem with CRV in California (and other states) is that you basically have to drive to the podunk outskirts of town to a recycling center, and often wait in a long smelly line just to get your return. This means you usually have to stockpile a lot of cans to make it even worthwhile to make that trip, and many people do not have room to stockpile a bunch of cans and then dedicate the time to go out for that long trip. Effectively it is just sort of an extra tax on the average person and most people will just opt to throw it in their recycling dumpster instead since it's still not quite worth the while unless you're literally unemployed or have a big yard to keep a giant garbage can full of cans. Upping CRV to match many European countries of like 25 cents on all bottles and cans wouldn't be bad at all, but there must be requirements that stores that sell bottles/cans also must accept them for CRV return so it's very convenient for everyone to do so (like those reverse vending machines)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Germany has a really cool CRV system, pretty much ~27 cents on all plastic bottles (even water), cans, etc, and all the grocery stores have vending-machines where you put them in and get your money back right there, I think its a "if you sell it, you must accept a return on it" system tho not sure on the actual law itself. I just remember being very impressed that they had such a cool thorough crv system when I was there. A lot of other European countries have similar as well. Oregon has that I think, at least all the Safeways near here have a bottle recycling thing. They only take glass though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Oregon has that I think, at least all the Safeways near here have a bottle recycling thing. They only take glass though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
I'd be in favor of increasing the CRV but the problem is that it would further incentivise homeless people to collect them from garbage cans. NIMBY and gently caress The Poors would flip their poo poo at the thought of some transient rooting through their recycling bin to snag 80˘ worth of aluminum cans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
I think that we should implement a CRV on cigarettes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I'd be in favor of increasing the CRV but the problem is that it would further incentivise homeless people to collect them from garbage cans. It's the current system lovely system we have (in California) that incentives, regardless of whatever the CRV is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Please do explain how a libertarian utopia would ensure that medical bills for lifelong smokers would be placed on the shoulders of those who incur them. Would they make sure the cost of cigarettes are high, like is proposed, even though they're cheap to manufacture and cigarette companies would gladly underprice their product to get people addicted? Or would they eliminate taxpayer-funded medical care and force the poor to either pay their outrageously expensive American medical bills themselves, or try and get insurance they can't afford because it isn't regulated and the industry has ridiculously high premiums and pre-existing conditions? Either way, I'd love to hear you justify how that way of government is fairer and more responsible to the least fortunate among us than those mean liberals and their awful nanny state tsk-tsking at them for their body-destroying chemical habit. It's the same "but my taxes might go up  " argument that people ITT get mad about, except apparently it's OK when you phrase it as being about curing the poor of their filthy habits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:I'd actually like to hear about the consequences of doing something like this, perhaps as an alternative to a soda tax. I could see that hurting the microbrew. 6 extra dollars for a six pack, where my average purchase for a pack is already at 10-15 dollars, I'd end up just switching to whisky. Honestly taxing the rich is just always the better option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 21:55
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Honestly eating the rich is just always the better option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Xaris posted:The main problem with CRV in California (and other states) is that you basically have to drive to the podunk outskirts of town to a recycling center, and often wait in a long smelly line just to get your return. This means you usually have to stockpile a lot of cans to make it even worthwhile to make that trip, and many people do not have room to stockpile a bunch of cans and then dedicate the time to go out for that long trip. Effectively it is just sort of an extra tax on the average person and most people will just opt to throw it in their recycling dumpster instead since it's still not quite worth the while unless you're literally unemployed or have a big yard to keep a giant garbage can full of cans. I recently tried to cash in the beer bottles left at my house after a Halloween party, and I made four separate trips to the town's recycling center. I was told on the first trip that the hours listed for the recycling center online were wrong and it was closed, on the second trip that the recycling center decided to close early that day, on the third trip that they weren't accepting bottles that day, and on the fourth trip that the line was well over an hour long. After all that I just decided that it wasn't worth the $7.50 or whatever I was going to get from the recycling center so I just threw the ~150 bottles in the recycling bin. I couldn't believe how annoying the whole process was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
The CRV is factored in to your trash pickup bill because the garbage man assumes that he will be getting some money back after he picks up your cans and bottles. If everyone brought their own bottles and cans to the recycling center then your bill would eventually have to go up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
withak posted:The CRV is factored in to your trash pickup bill because the garbage man assumes that he will be getting some money back after he picks up your cans and bottles. If everyone brought their own bottles and cans to the recycling center then your bill would eventually have to go up. Also the energy effiency on glass recycling is really marginal so putting it in your regular recycling is probably better than driving to a drop-off location. Plastics and metals are the more energy effective to recycle and metals sometimes can even be profitable. Taking anything above #3 plastic is not profitable afaik. Still good for the environment. Getting organic wastes out of landfills is another huge and important area since it is a big source of climate emissions and compost is a decent output product.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, the true libertarian solution would be to let the market determine the price of both cigarettes and healthcare, but I don't find the alternative of the government deciding which citizens' behavior is going to cause the most expense for the state and extracting money from them via regressive taxation to be particularly noble either. Drifter's argument was that taxes on soda/cigarettes/booze are good because that way the people who use them are offsetting their future use of the healthcare system. The first time I heard the argument that people who utilize government services should be the ones to pay for them, it was homeowners arguing that they shouldn't have to subsidize the local public school because their kids didn't go there. It's odd seeing people doing mental gymnastics to excuse Bloomberg's soda tax on an economic basis using similar logic. I actually agree with subsidizing the local school systems through taxes, regardless of whether you have kids going there or not. I think doing something that harms others in addition to yourself should be taxed out to prevent use. Soda is a special case as it really only kinda hurts you alone, but it's hosed up enough that it should be taxed to reduce use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
I know there have been a few of you guys who have posted your takes on all of the statewide ballot initiatives earlier in the thread, but I'm lazy and don't feel like flipping back through 100 pages of recycling and gun chat, so could someone re-post their list? Preferably someone like Leperflesh, since he consistently seems to know what the gently caress he's talking about. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
BCRock posted:I know there have been a few of you guys who have posted your takes on all of the statewide ballot initiatives earlier in the thread, but I'm lazy and don't feel like flipping back through 100 pages of recycling and gun chat, so could someone re-post their list? http://www.peterates.com/props-1116.shtml
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Thanks. code:
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
BCRock posted:Thanks. I could personally use some convincing on the cigarette tax. I'm already on the fence when it comes to cigarette taxes because they tend to hit low-income users more heavily, even though I'm of course in favor of disincentivizing smoking through taxes. What I'm really not in favor of is the fact that the proposition has a 70% tax on vaping packaged into it. If the primary function of taxes like these are to curb unhealthy behaviors that'll cost taxpayers more down the line, I'd want to see some more solid evidence that vaping has a sufficiently negative impact on human health.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Pete sums it up better than any goon ever could anyways, so just read his list as it's pretty much the best way to vote. Only one worth taking issue and sitting down and thinking about it yourself is 61 You need to think about 61? How can you arrive at anything but no? Do we need price controls on prescription drugs? Yes. Does prop 61 do a good job of controlling prices? No.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:You need to think about 61? How can you arrive at anything but no? Do we need price controls on prescription drugs? Yes. Does prop 61 do a good job of controlling prices? No. Voting No sends a signal that "hey california doesn't even want price controls lmao what hope do we have in podunky state?" and even further propositions taking it too safe because hey the last one failed so we need to make it even weaker! No argument it doesn't do anything itself, that doesn't mean legislature won't take another look given huge public support for trying something and try to improve it with state laws. Xaris fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
BCRock posted:Thanks. Why those positions on 51, 52 and 65? I've been leaning the opposite on those three. (51 because of the handout to builders, 52 because of the net good though I agree putting it as a prop is a problem, and 65 because I don't know why we should be guaranteeing profit for stores) I guess Pete is of the "anything that mandates where taxes get spent is a bad thing that shouldn't have gone to the voters in the first place so I'll automatically reject it" mindset? Not that I fault him if that's the case. It's one of the reasons I'm undecided on 52. But I don't see how 65 undermines 67. Worst case stores just don't offer the option because it's not cost-effective, which is still a net good for the environment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Voting No sends a signal that "hey california doesn't even want price controls lmao what hope do we have in podunky state?" and even further propositions taking it too safe because hey the last one failed so we need to make it even weaker! No argument it doesn't do anything itself, that doesn't mean legislature won't take another look given huge public support for trying something and try to improve it with state laws. Remember that this comes after the 2014 prop where we voted down giving the state the right to reject health care increases, so this cycle is already ongoing. Still it's easy to see how it could put California in a bind since there's nothing that forces drug companies to play along.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Because ultimately it's an experiment, that probably won't do anything at all but an experiment none the less, but more importantly and pushing agenda of "hey we need to do something about this loving poo poo!" and encouraging other states and ultimately federal level to do something, and hopefully getting further propositions (or ideally legislature at the state level seeing how the public is in support of it) that improve and extend price controls to be better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
BCRock posted:Preferably someone like Leperflesh, since he consistently seems to know what the gently caress he's talking about. Thanks!  Seriously? He's archetype of a poster that continually has to walk things back after people with experience in the real world chime in, and his high flying theories and ideals are dashed on the rocks of how the world actually works.BCRock posted:This almost exactly matches what I have down on my sample ballot right now. Anyone strongly disagree with any of these and want to share their reasoning? 56: Stop trying to police the poor by making things you don't want them to do more expensive via regressive taxation. Sack up and make smoking illegal, or don't. 61: If you are voting for a proposition "as an experiment" or "to send a message", you are directly contributing to our laws being impenatrable and ineffective. Editorializing is for blogs, not the California codes. 63: Already addressed by the legislature this year. A vanity prop by Newsom to lay the groundwork for his gubernatorial run, which should be reason enough to vote no. No one can actually explain how it would reduce gun crime. Makes it illegal to not report being the victim of a crime (having a gun stolen) which a place as FTP as DnD should be able to understand is a terrible precedent. Vote no if you have a philosophy of governed more coherent than "gently caress gun owners."
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 05:53
|
|