Lately it seems like everywhere I read the government is talking about taxing us more, more, more!!!!

Lately I have read in various places about these taxes in addition to all the ones we already pay, including: Federal, SS, medicare, state, city, school district, property, sales tax, gas tax, license plates, hunting and fishing licenses (really just another tax!!!)and cigarette tax.

Now for the new ones!!! SIN tax (tax on high fat foods like snack cakes, chips, etc...) increased cigarette taxes, liquor taxes, tax on food, a tax on seeds, and the potential value of your garden produce!!!!!, a tax on the water from your well, ( will put a meter on and measure ) tax on rainwater collection. Most of these I read about in the newspaper here locally!!!

It is estimated that it takes the average person until May, to earn enough money to pay their taxes now!!!! If you see anything about these taxes, contact your representatives and let then know what you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Melissa in SE Ohio (me@home.net), April 22, 2002

Answers

A tax on your well, you gotta be kidding. AAAUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!! Seeds!!!!!!!!!! potential value of your garden produce!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! rainwater collection. Somebody needs to get a life.

-- Cindy (S.E.IN) (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), April 22, 2002.

Melissa,

May is bad enough but I was just doing some research last week on taxes and ran across some stats listing July 6, 2001 as the day you finished paying your share of taxes to "run the government". What a depressing thought.

-- Lenette (kigervixen@nospam.com), April 22, 2002.

Hi Lenette, I have seen anything from March to July, with May being the "average." Probably depends on your income level, I am sure, and whether they count SS and medicare taxes. Some don't since it could be considered a retirement plan...

-- Melissa in SE Ohio (me@home.net), April 22, 2002.

I've said for years that our lawmaking bodies at every level (county councils to congress) meet far too many days each year. Some of these laws have to be evidence that with all that time on their hands they seem to think they have to pass new laws while they're there.

I'm personally a proponent of what is known as "sunset legislation," which, simply put, would set a time limit on any legislation. If, at the end of the time limit, it's not renewed it's over. That way the laws and their effects would have to endure a 'review' in order to remain on the books. Also, it wouldn't take MORE legislation to revoke the old legislation.

It's a lot easier to let something die a natural death than to kill it. ;o)

-- Gary in Indiana (gk6854@aol.com), April 22, 2002.

Dad always said the less time our state lawmakers spent in Austin, the better. lol. I think he routinely votes against anything they put on the ballot. Figures no new law is a good law, lol.

I think we'd be a lot better off if those guys in DC did a little less, too.

-- mary (mlg@mlg.com), April 22, 2002.

If the taxes actually go to what they're supposed to (like to health care for smokers and alcoholics), great. Problem is they don't. I think the only way to curb that kind of behavior would be to put them in their own high risk insurance pool (so the rest of us can have lower rates). It is not fair to exclude (or make it so expensive you are in effect excluded) someone from insurance because of a condition they can't help, but, nobody forces you to smoke or drink--that's your own choice. You should accept the consequences of that choice.

As to the food taxes on high-fat, high-sugar items, they might have a harder row to hoe to get those passed--people need to eat. Are you going to tax the basic ingredients (flour, sugar, etc.) too so that people won't even make the stuff?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 22, 2002.

See, GT, once the free-thinkers are done with the smokers and the alcoholics, these nice folks gonna come after you..and tax french fries and burgers cause they ain't "heart heathly"....then they will look at the folks who like to get tan and tax them for their skin cancer risk, hmm, then there are those "bad' folks who eat MEAT.. (Gasp)...and so on and so forth..soon, there will be health police looking in the fridge and having children report on their parents sleeping habits...OFF WITH THEIR HEADS>>they stayed up LATE and watched TV!!!! Egad! whatever happened to personal responsibilty here? If I want to drink and smoke myself into oblivion, and drive a motorcycle without a helmet while yelling Yahoo and chewing on a hamburger filled with cheddar cheese around my own property I should be allowed to do so. I certainly should be allowed to collect my own rainwater, bath naked in it and munch potato chips while sorting seeds I saved from last years crops, which I grew with the help from my mule who also pulls my buggy which I used instead of a CAR! Seriously now, the very idea of these new and unimproved taxes are sufficient to recall the concept behind the Boston Tea Party..way too much intrusive government, way too less personal responsibility. What oains me is the young folks who do not recall what this fine country was like before all this foolishness surfaced..people made CHOICES...you did not need the government to tell you how to eat or drink or what kind of clothes to wear...everyone knew coffee was HOT and riding without a helmet was dangerous and you do not feed peanut butter to a baby....we don't need taxes on rainwater and seeds in order to fund more programs to teach folks what to eat..we don't need more taxes on fast foods to teach folks that tofu is better than grease, we sure don't need taxes on breathing and sleeping, although someday, someone will think of it undoubtably. What we DO need is less governemnt and more folks who use common sense, something truly lacking in our society today!

-- lesley (martchas@bellsouth.net), April 22, 2002.

You already pay taxes on the garden seed if you buy it, so in effect you have already been taxed on your garden produce. Think that one would fly?

Also, if they aren't willing to make city or rural water available, they shouldn't have the right to tax a well! (Not that I'd use it, but it's odd to me that the people all around me have city water and fire hydrants available, but my little street doesn't!)

-- Christine in OK (cljford@mmcable.com), April 22, 2002.

Lesley, what I have problems with are people who deliberately pickle their livers getting higher on the organ donor lists than someone who has a condition completely out of their control, and health care costs for all going up because of the people who do smoke and drink. Auto companies put people in high risk groups--if you smoke or drink, you should be in one for health care too.

The food taxes, well, I guess it depends upon what you eat and drink. I hardly ever drink soda any more, and chips have to be on sale before I even think of buying them. Meat, I can take or leave. As to baked goods, I prefer really nice bakery quality to Hostess, etc. (and if I really wanted to make some of those items, there is always www.topsecretrecipe.com and the books he sells on the website and in bookstores). That's why I asked, are you going to tax basic foods like flour and sugar or just the prepackaged convenience foods? If it is the prepackaged stuff, oh well, I don't eat enough of it to matter, lol. You can get just as fat making/eating all that stuff yourself. And people have to eat, I know that some states tax food, but many of them don't.

I was surprised to hear about the rainwater tax, as has been described. I have heard about stormwater fees, where you get a fee (as opposed to a tax) based on how much property you own vs. how much is assumed to be paved over/built over (supposedly to fund drainage--in other words, too much water). To me, if your house is properly guttered, and you can either show that all house runoff is either going into rainbarrels or on a low spot on YOUR property (the seasonal pond), you should be able to get out of the fee.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 22, 2002.

ought NOT to be ANY fee for rainwater..period, end of conversation..next thing they'll tax is the sun if you let them get away with that one....common sense please...

-- lesley (martchas@bellsouth.net), April 22, 2002.

The rainwater one was a bit over the top! but the thinking was that if you use the rain water it is not flowing inot the resevoirs that some cities use to provide water that gets paid for!!! So they would charge you if you used a "catchment" system. Every single one of these ideas has been seriously debated at either the state of Federal level...

-- Melissa in SE Ohio (me@home.net), April 22, 2002.

I don't mind paying my "fair share" but this is getting ridiculous.

It seems to me that the federal government should be able to levy taxes for the purposes of paying for our defense and some pretty basic stuff. What gripes me, though, is how Congress is using the tax system to do social legislation. For example, the earned income credit has nothing to do with taxes--it's all about encouraging people to work. Gee--you can get more back than you put in. Then we have the alternative minimum tax--that's a joke. (In case y'all think you have to be "rich" for it to apply, you don't.) Even the IRS hates the alternative minimum tax . . . but it's Congress who passes all of this garbage. Bleck.

-- Julie in NC (jwoessner@rtmx.net), April 22, 2002.

OK, before I make my comment I feel I must preface it...I am not a racist, I could not care less what color anyone's skin is....I heard on O'Reilley Factor last week that the IRS actually wrongly refunded some people who wrote in something to the effect of "Slavery Reparations Deduction" We are talking hundreds of thousands if not millions that the IRS is shamefacedly trying to recover....and we are supposed to trust them??? Julie in OK

-- Julie (okwilk213@juno.com), April 22, 2002.

The earned income credit is welfare, plain and simple. You should never get back more than you put in. As to the AMT, the biggest issue has always been that it has NOT been adjusted for inflation, so that is why what was supposed to be a tax on "the rich", is hitting the middle class. Congress should have dealt with this long ago.

And what is "fair share"? A flat tax would be nice, but are you going to do away with all deductions (I can hear the lobbyists now--what, no deduction for mortgage interest or medical expenses, etc., etc.)?

And it would be nice to have flat fees for homes/businesses instead of ad valorum property taxes. I would vote for more school levies if they were say $10 per house, regardless of size, not according to some value pulled out of a hat.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 22, 2002.

Great idea, Melissa, though sometimes I think letting our legislators know how we feel is a lost cause. Bad attitude, I know, but with what I see going on in Washington these days . . .

I really agree with Gary in Indiana's position on legislation; makes a whole lot of sense. Sometimes, changing a bad law is harder than letting it stay in effect. His proposal would change that.

I also agree with GT above; no one should receive any money who has not payed into the system to begin with.

Here is my 'modest proposal'. How about a flat tax on everybody of about 15%, no deductions on anything, small (10% max.)consumption taxes on gas and food. Flat tax on anyone making more than $20,000; anyone making below that$20,000, no income tax. Other taxes apply though.

One of my friends suggested NO INCOME TAX AT ALL. Just make it law that property and other assets could not be passed on, just handed over to government. Goverment would make money on the sale to individuals buying it.

Controversial position, no? Makes some sense in that many children would balk at that; (no trust fund coming to me at all? But my parents EARNED THAT MONEY! WAAAAH!) Sure make some of those brats sit up and take notice; Omigod, I gotta EARN A LIVING . . . this is too much to handle.

I'm kinda sarcastic this morning, so please forgive my attitude. Didn't mean to hurt anyones feelings.

-- j.r. guerra in s. tx. (jrguerra@boultinghousesimpson.com), April 23, 2002.

Interesting concept to turn all property over to the governemnt, but easy to get around. Just "sell" it to your children when you are older. would work 95% of the time. I personally would like to see the elimination of the income tax and have a sales tax to support everything. Also on property tax issues, if you don't own property you don't vote.

-- Melissa in SE Ohio (me@home.net), April 23, 2002.

Melissa, that was exactly how the writers of the Constitution envisioned it--no property, no vote, but it didn't fly. And if they passed it today, you'd see people selling postage stamp pieces of property to anyone who wanted to vote.

My own thoughts are on property taxes and anything directly affected by them (like levies), 1) only the original owner (in the area or not) who is actually on the tax rolls can vote on any new taxes/levies, and 2) if you are eligible for any tax exemptions/deferrals (elderly, etc.), you can't vote on property taxes either.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 23, 2002.