Berkeley is also seriously considering a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages—aka a ‘soda tax’. A public vote will settle the matter next month, and, in the view of Robert Reich, ‘if a soda tax can’t pass in the most progressive city in America, it can’t pass anywhere’.
Consider that statement for a moment. If you didn’t know what the word ‘progressive’ meant—and you knew nothing about Berkeley—what could you infer from the context? If the sentence was changed to ‘if a soda tax can’t pass in the most oppressive city in America, it can’t pass anywhere’, it would make sense. If words like ‘tax-hungry’, ‘anti-business’, ‘puritanical’ or ‘illiberal’ were substituted for ‘progressive’, it would still read correctly. …
This is what confuses us, America. If a ‘liberal bastion’ —your ‘most progressive city’—is one in which the government effectively fines people for drinking the wrong type of soft drink, what on earth are your illiberal bastions like?
Through the Looking Glass
ADVERTISEMENT
24 Comments for “Through the Looking Glass”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The “sin tax” tradition in the United States is as old as the Whiskey Rebellion.
“Sin taxes” are a subset of the tradition of using tax law to shape individual behavior to achieve public policy goals. Want to pump up the home-building industry, even though it often costs more to own than rent? Give folks a tax break for home ownership. Want to encourage religion? Don’t tax churches and allow folks to deduct their contributions. Want breeders to marry and keep the women at home? Give married taxpayers a huge marriage subsidy but impose a “marriage tax” on couples where the woman has a high-earning job. Want to punish spendthrifts who don’t save for their old age? Subsidize Keoghs and IRAS. And so on.
The idiocy of our government’s attempts to use taxation to shape public policy — both liberals and conservatives do it in spades, and as often as not it is an exercise in unintended consequences — is the best argument going for a flat tax with absolutely no deductions. The Whiskey Rebellion wasn’t far off the right path.
posted by Houndentenor on
I was just thinking the same thing. What’s the difference between taxing sugar and taxing alcohol and tobacco? There is none. Someone decided those things are bad and taxed them. Perhaps Stephen is for reducing or eliminating those taxes in which case he should get on that, but pretending there’s a difference because reasons is ludicrous. (Note: I would probably not vote for the sugar tax if it were up for a vote.)
posted by Jorge on
Ah, yes. Banning sinful toxic drinks was part of the progressive movement.
posted by Kosh III on
“what on earth are your illiberal bastions like?”
Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina(still proudly flying the flag of Treason) just to name a few.
Places with voter suppression, gay-bashing, immigrant-hating, nannies trying to control women’s bodies, dictating who one can love or hate, what religion to adhere to etc etc
You know, GOP/Conservative/Tea Party Dominions
Why doesn’t Sullivan, Rauch or Miller move there since they lust for a conservative paradise?
posted by Houndentenor on
Every TeaPartier type I know is on some form of government assistance (SS, medicare, disability) or works for some level of government or a business whose main customer is some form of government. These are the folks who want smaller government in our country. Let’s give it to them and see how they like it. The redder the state the more likely those voters are to be soaking up federal benefits. Maybe we should give the money back to the states in block grants so that taxpayers in NJ would be getting back what they pay in rather than subsidizing people in Alabama and Mississippi who claim they don’t want that money anyway.
posted by Clayton on
How about places that still outlaw marijuana under the guise of the public good, while allowing (taxed) liquor and alcohol sales to move forward?
I’m not a fan of marijuana use. I also don’t somke, and my drinking is limited to an occasional glass of wine. But I recognize that all three of these substances–like white sugar–can cause health problems. Stephen’s outrage about the soda tax would be a lot more convincing if he was similarly outraged against tobacco and alcohol taxes and against marijuana prohibition.
And–btw–I agree with Kosh: I’d rather live in a state like California that taxed my sodas than in a state like Mississippi, Louisiana, or Texas, where my marriage remains unrecognized.
‘
posted by Mike in Houston on
Getting lectured by someone from Britain about taxes like this is pretty damn funny.
You have to get a license (tax) for everything — including TV — there… and don’t get me started on the VAT.
posted by Don on
While I understand the logic behind getting angry about “sin” taxes, preferential tax cuts are the same animal. Why do we give special tax breaks for searching for oil? There’s a reason for that, and it passed, but is it really any different? the result is that some things are taxed at higher rates.
If it is “meddling with people’s choices and businesses” that is the problem, then why do we have tax breaks that do it = good; and tax hikes that do it = bad?
I’m for taxing pollution. Not because I believe in penalizing things. It’s merely a “free waste disposal in our air/water” that I am opposed to.
It all in what you call it.
posted by Jorge on
At the risk of beating dead horses, United States v. Windsor revolved around such preferential tax breaks. Might we have had a different result if we didn’t use taxes to legislate morality? It galls me that marriage is reduced to a financial game.
posted by Don on
Arguments of “fairness” work for people on the left. They have no meaning on the right. Not because they are mean or heartless, how the left often understands their position. It is because conservatives believe that life is inherently unfair and that you’ve got to play the game on those terms.
So we’re talking about these in terms those that still oppose it understand: taxing one group more than another group. That argument gets traction.
So while soda taxes gall conservatives, they wholeheartedly endorse taxing us at higher rates to “save us from ourselves.” That is the entire public policy prescription for homosexuality: make it harder to be gay so you won’t be gay. Pass any law you can to make it unbearable to be gay.
Just like “make soda more expensive and we will drink less/none of it.”
posted by Houndentenor on
Is there any evidence that these taxes actually work as intended: to cause people to use certain products less? I recently read an article that said that the recent spike in gas prices (they are now falling again) didn’t result in people overall driving less. The same happened when meat prices drastically rose. I personally cut back on how much meat I eat but there was no noticeable overall trend in people cutting back. I know that in theory when something becomes more expensive people are supposed to buy less of it, but some products seem immune to such efforts and I suspect that sugary drinks, like meat, alcohol, tobacco and gasoline is going to immune to a small increase in price.
posted by Doug on
I believe that the very high taxes on cigarettes has had some downward pressure on sales but hard to say with certainty as the antismoking campaign has also influenced the industry.
posted by tom Jefferson. on
(SIGH) it is almost cute to watch selective and hypothetical outrage.
Personally, I cannot stand regular cola/soft drinks and kissing a smoker – in terms of “sin” taxes ain’t really fun either.
Do the taxes on cigarettes prompt people to quit or not to start?
I would be some what curious to see where the sin revenue is going and
posted by Kosh III on
A few yeara back when the State got millions from a tobacco settlement it was supposed to go for health and stop-smoking uses.
But oops! the cotton growers needed more money to fight the boll weevil, businesses needed Incentives(welfare check) the rainy day fun was low and what was left went into the general fun.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Two more states, two quick notes:
ALASKA – The Supreme Court denied Alaska’s petition for a stay, and the 9th Circuit stay has expired. Alaska is now a marriage equality state, although I understand that today is a state holiday, so marriage licenses will not be issued again until state/county offices are open.
ARIZONA – The District Court ordered Arizona to begin issuing marriage licenses, and AG Tom Horne issued a statement that Arizona would not appeal the decision. As I understand it, marriage are now ongoing.
That leaves only Montana a marriage discrimination state in the 9th Circuit. A District Court ruling/order is expected on Monday.
In the 10th Circuit, Wyoming and Nebraska are the remaining outliers, and in the 4th Circuit, South Carolina stands alone.
By my count, we are now at 31 states, comprising just about 63% of the US population, in which marriages are being performed.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Should read: “In the 10th Circuit, Wyoming and Kansas are the remaining outliers …” Nebraska is in the 8th Circuit.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
District Court Judge Scott Skavdahl ordered Wyoming to allow same-sex marriage this afternoon. The decision was stayed until Thursday to allow the state to appeal.
So far, nothing on whether the state will appeal. Wyoming Governor Matt Mead said that Wyoming should not appeal the decision in a debate earlier this week, but the decision is not his alone — AG Peter Micheal is the state official charged with making that decision. My guess is that if Mead doesn’t want to appeal, Michael will not.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Minnesota achieved marriage equality by the State legislature — although that may change after this election, so what the court says in their circuit is still relevant.
The North Dakota legal challenges are still in the early stages of “not really much happening, yet”.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think that it will start moving now, although it will not be a linear progression.
We have three states to mop up in the 4th, 9th and 10th Circuits (Kansas, Montana, South Carolina) and, absent something unexpected, that process should be done by Thanksgiving.
Judge Sessions promised a “quick decision” in the 6th Circuit after oral arguments in early August, so I would expect a decision soon. I’m surprised that we haven’t had one already, to be honest. A decision in the 6thCircuit will either bring in four more states (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee) or provoke Supreme Court review, depending on which way Judge Sutton decides. A negative decision from Judge Sutton is likely to prompt a Supreme Court decision this term.
Then we wait, either for the Supreme Court to overturn a negative decision in the 6th Circuit or for the 5th, 8th and 11th Circuits to decide.
The 11th Circuit (Alabama, Florida, Georgia) seems primed to move expeditiously because of the pressure coming up from Florida, and I don’t expect a surprise result. I’d guess a decision will be coming from the 11th Circuit by early next year, and unless we are very unlucky in panel selection, a pro-equality decision.
The 5th Circuit (Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) has finally started moving, and oral arguments are scheduled in both the Louisiana and Texas cases in December, suggesting a decision by mid-Spring. The 5th Circuit is the expect “problem” jurisdiction if Judge Sutton doesn’t throw the monkey wrench — it is hard to look at that Court without realizing that we could as easily get a 1-2 panel as a 2-1 panel, so I won’t be the least surprised if we get a negative decision out of the 5th Circuit. The problem is that the decision may well come too later for the Supreme Court to act this term, putting off a national decision until the 2015-2016 term.
The 8th Circuit is a puzzle because the court decided Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning in 2006, a decision that upheld Nebraska’s constitutional amendment.
It is not clear how much weight District Courts in the 8th Circuit will give that decision, which was decided pre-Windsor, decided before the “rational basis” arguments were demolished under examination, and relied heavily on Baker. Technically, Bruning is binding precedent on the District Courts in the 8th Circuit, so the District Courts, if deciding for equality, will have to find a way to distinguish the case, somewhat similar to the way in which courts have been distinguishing Baker.
Summary judgement will be a difficult target in the 8th Circuit because of Bruning, so I suspect that we will have to watch the whole process slog along, which will take months and months.
Accordingly, I don’t expect a quick process in the 8th Circuit. The cases in the states were the last to be filed, and (as you note) “not really much is happening, yet” in those cases. Pressure will build as other Circuits weigh in, but I don’t see a way to shortcut the slogging, given Bruning. My guess is a decision no sooner than late Spring or early Summer, even if the thing is fast-tracked.
posted by Jim Michaud on
So Tom, we can expect this rapid acquisition of equality states to slow to a trickle soon. It’s now at 31. With Wyoming it’s 32. Add in MT, SC & KS and it’s 35. Plus the 4 6th circuit states and it’s 39. Looks like it will then stay at 39 for quite a while. I hope I did my math correctly.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yup, math’s good. Here’s a prediction: Mop up in the 4th, 9th and 10th, and decision by the 6th no later than Thanksgiving. 5th and 1lth decisions by Easter. 8th straggling in by the 4th of July. Since I’m almost always wrong about predictions, you can make of that what you want.
Here’s the rub: If the remaining Circuits decide in favor of marriage equality, we’ll be wrapped up in time to sing “Let Freedom Ring” with the fireworks. But if the 6th throws the monkey wrench this Fall, things shift to the Supreme Court, with a national decision in June 2015. And if the 6th comes down in favor of equality, but the 5th Circuit throws the monkey wrench next Spring, we’ll probably have to wait until the 2015-2016 term for a national decision, for the simple reason that the Supreme Court 2014-2015 docket will be filled by the end of this year.
I think that a lot of this depends on Judge Sutton in the 6th. If he decides to rule in favor of equality, however reluctantly he might do so (see the Wyoming decision for an example of a grudging decision), I suspect that the remaining Circuits (5th, 8th and 11th) will fall into line, because at that point two of the three most conservative Circuits (6th, 7th, 8th) will have ruled for equality — with decisions written by two of the most well-respected conservative Circuit Judges (Posner and Sutton) — and I don’t think that even the hard-core conservatives on the 5th (who are not, by any means, shining judicial lights of the conservative movement like Posner and Sutton) would ignore it.
A personal note: I didn’t expect it, but it makes a real psychological difference to be living, suddenly, in a free state. Before, my husband and I were married with an “*”. After, we are married, period. If has made a difference in how we are treated by other people, and that makes a difference in how we think about ourselves as a couple. I didn’t expect that.
The difference in attitude I’m sensing is reflected in the polling — the state’s most respected poll (Marquette University) shows a 10-point jump (from 53% to 63%) in acceptance of marriage equality since May. Judge Crabb ruled in early June, right after the May poll. That suggests to me that Wisconsinites are adjusting to the change, positively, now that the issue is settled for us. I suspect that this will be true in the rest of the country, too. My guess is that we’ll end up like Canada, with about 70% favoring marriage equality, within a few years.
posted by Jorge on
A personal note: I didn’t expect it, but it makes a real psychological difference to be living, suddenly, in a free state. Before, my husband and I were married with an “*”. After, we are married, period. If has made a difference in how we are treated by other people, and that makes a difference in how we think about ourselves as a couple. I didn’t expect that.
I am glad that you are starting from a place where you have lived your lives as free men through your own resolve.
And yet even so, what you describe is much of the reason gay marriage became a constitutional issue.
Imagine, if you will, the day one realizes one is gay. One also realizes that their sexual orientation in truth corresponds to the homosexual orientation in society’s labeling. No force of will can shield someone from the struggle to believe, reject, or ignore what society labels one to be. It is not a struggle that lasts forever, but, sometimes people die as a result. The appeals courts generally recognize sexual orientation as a constitutionally protected category demanding “heightened scrutiny.” Thus judgment calls are made, and lines get drawn.
So it gets even better, eh?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A side note: Kansas Republicans are still playing the “wedge card“, to no one’s surprise. We’ll see how that works, I guess.
posted by Jim Michaud on
This is just Brownback trying to get as many soc cons to the polls as possible. After November 4th, things will speed up and Kansas will comply. You know that the anti-SSM crowd is running out of gas when they can’t even muster more than 100 for a rally in Wichita (they used to draw thousands).