quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

If we are talking about some moral value...yes, there is a point where income is simply too much. Say $1 trillion/hr. might be, I say...might be too much. You never know in America.

The problem with income inequality isn't just the final figure, it is how one arrives at that figure, and how much it is taxed by society. For example as I've written before. Why is it that someone gets up at 11 am hits the back 9 and makes say $1 million in one year on capital gains and did pay 15%, now 20% in federal tax, while a Surgeon performs a life-saving skill and also open up a specialty office and makes a $1 million a year yet pays what 39% ? Why ?

Ok the investor has about $800,000 left over and the Dr has about $600,000 left over. Now the investor has $200,000 MORE he can re-invest than the Dr. Why ?

It results in what is called the wealth factor and one egregious example is Bloomberg had $3 billion (net worth) that was invested and 'earned' income and all of the while serving in a real job as mayor of NY for 12 years (making a good salary and paying about 35-39% federal tax) during which those $3 billion had accumulated or risen to $33 billion in investment 'earnings' and paid capital gains ($6.6 billion less in taxes) on much of it from a resulting much lower federal tax...increasing his wealth factor yet even more and for 12 years, and which continues today.

(the Koch bros. went from a combined net worth 2013 of $72 billion to $85 billion 2014 by 'earning' $13 billion in one year, taxed at substantially less then their highest salaried staff, why ?)

So the question becomes academic in as much as we know the answer is impractical...of no use. Apparently, no amount is 'too much income' but rather...how much should it be taxed ?

I say much higher, paying back society for its basic civil expenses in creating an economic environment where one can make ANY billion$.

Oh and just the wall street bonuses for 2014...bonuses ONLY amounted to twice as much, that's twice as much as ALL of the money earned at minimum wage in America. Yes, you read that right that's in addition to the 80 richest people in the world being as wealthy as the combined wealth of 3.6 Trillion of the world's poorest people.

So clearly, NO amount if money is...too much.

Oh and as for the OP and taxes you pay ? You could say it is because of the taxes...other don't pay.

Oh fucking...opps sorry for using a word that might be "bad" for sensitive ears. So, on the other hand there might be a minimum wage too high. Like, a trillion dollars an hour? Go ahead comment. Let's see where this goes.

Well I am sure there is a minimum wage too high but an experiment as untried as one in search of an income too high. However, even though admittedly it did take a few paragraphs, I did reply to the OP as written and you could start another OP.

I regard a minimum wage as simply a floor under which no worker should be forced to go given what's easily one morally justified and politically rationalized by the fact that there is no ceiling against which upper incomes are to be limited.

Here's how to morally raise minimum wages.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/seeded-with-tax-cuts-kansas-harvests-the-benefits-1431729743

I don't consider making a government so,powerful that it can grind any person under its heel and then have that government take things from one group, keep a substantial portion of the confiscated stuff to feed itself and then dispose of the rest so that it can buy votes to stay in power moral.

I recall a guy when I was young. He went in to the local barber shop and made a deal with the barber. The kid would clean up, sweep up hair and the barber gave him enough to buy chips and soda. As I recall he liked BBQ potato chips. In your immoral world that couldn't happen. The barber would be subject to civil penalties for violating minimum wage laws and the kid would be taught that initiative to earn things he wanted was illigal. Just can't see the morality.

I remember the absolute first time I was given a raise to above the minimum wage. It was a nickel an hour raise. I was pretty darned pleased and proud of the hard work I put in to get it. I was living out on my own. I had roommates to survive. Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage and learning hard work will raise you in life is a good thing. Teaching people they will be taken care of by the government and not having initiative was okay, as long as they owed allegence to government, is just an evil thing.

Well given that we have segued to a tangent, I will comment this far.

In that your example of the barbershop help, does not qualify for minimum wage, I suggest it is a quaint reminder that employers will at least try to take advantage of just about anybody.

I also remember my first raise above minimum wage and like it was yesterday. I was making $1.25/hr and the regional manager was walking and talking to the cashiers. When he got to me, he asked "How would I like a raise ?" Of course I replied that I would very much like a raise, he said "I thought so and you are now making $1.35/hr" while almost beaming as if he had rewarded me for my hard work and reliability.

When I recalled that while I very much appreciated his so touching concern, the minimum wage had very recently been raised to $1.35/hr., he turned red as a beet at his obvious embarrassment caused I am sure, by the realization that by law...he was forced to award me that raise and he and any merit of my work excellence...had nothing whatever to do with it.

As for your link...not even a nice try: HERE

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Paris Hilton tax cut?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I don't consider making a government so,powerful that it can grind any person under its heel and then have that government take things from one group, keep a substantial portion of the confiscated stuff to feed itself and then dispose of the rest so that it can buy votes to stay in power moral.

Not only do Liberals want to confiscate money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't, but they rest on the "They didn't earn it, so they shouldn't get to keep it" argument to support a higher "death" tax. Talk about hypocrisy! They want to confiscate more money via the estate tax because the heirs "didn't earn it," to help distribute more to those who didn't earn it.

It's a fucking shell game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There should be no limit on how much a person can make, as long as he/she is willing to work as hard as necessary to legally earn it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Paris Hilton tax cut?

As much as I don't give a rat's ass about Paris Hilton, nor how much money she had, it's still wrong. Her father paid taxes on his income. He earned it. It's his to do with what he pleases, even if that means an airhead gets set for life, and more. Some people actually work very hard to provide for their heirs. You might not be able to take it with you, but you can certainly leave it for others.

The point is, though, that this is not government's money. It belongs to whoever earned it, and that person has every right to do with his/her property as he/she sees fit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I don't consider making a government so,powerful that it can grind any person under its heel and then have that government take things from one group, keep a substantial portion of the confiscated stuff to feed itself and then dispose of the rest so that it can buy votes to stay in power moral.

Not only do Liberals want to confiscate money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't, but they rest on the "They didn't earn it, so they shouldn't get to keep it" argument to support a higher "death" tax. Talk about hypocrisy! They want to confiscate more money via the estate tax because the heirs "didn't earn it," to help distribute more to those who didn't earn it.
It's a fucking shell game.

omg.. how many actually pay estate tax? anyone with more than the amount where it kicks in has at least 1 trust (I know someone with 3 trusts!).. if you have money where the estate tax kicks in and you dont have a trust you are a total moron.. Rich people have the money to pay tax lawyers to keep any tax they pay (both when alive and when dead) down to the bare minimum.. do you have the luxury of hiring a tax lawyer to do that for you? no, you (you as in the 99%) go to H&R Block and get shitty (& very possibly incorrect) tax advice.. Every time the govt makes a move to tax the rich, the rich find 3 counter moves that gut the tax they would have paid..

quote:

You said-

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There should be no limit on how much a person can make, as long as he/she is willing to work as hard as necessary to legally earn it.

I agree up with that however I would add that the person should not be allowed to lobby the govt to make laws favorable to that person (& those like him/her).. I am really sick and tired of that.. they go so far as to circumvent one govt by lobbying another govt.. for instance.. some cities/towns here in TX either banned fracking or were considering banning fracking.. so what do the rich pro-frackers do? they lobby the state govt to make those local laws invalid/illegal... This is what America is all about, screwing your fellow man to add even more money into your already fat wallet.. This country is pretty damn disgusting in how corrupt & greedy it is..

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I don't consider making a government so,powerful that it can grind any person under its heel and then have that government take things from one group, keep a substantial portion of the confiscated stuff to feed itself and then dispose of the rest so that it can buy votes to stay in power moral.

Not only do Liberals want to confiscate money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't, but they rest on the "They didn't earn it, so they shouldn't get to keep it" argument to support a higher "death" tax. Talk about hypocrisy! They want to confiscate more money via the estate tax because the heirs "didn't earn it," to help distribute more to those who didn't earn it.
It's a fucking shell game.

omg.. how many actually pay estate tax? anyone with more than the amount where it kicks in has at least 1 trust (I know someone with 3 trusts!).. if you have money where the estate tax kicks in and you dont have a trust you are a total moron.. Rich people have the money to pay tax lawyers to keep any tax they pay (both when alive and when dead) down to the bare minimum.. do you have the luxury of hiring a tax lawyer to do that for you? no, you (you as in the 99%) go to H&R Block and get shitty (& very possibly incorrect) tax advice.. Every time the govt makes a move to tax the rich, the rich find 3 counter moves that gut the tax they would have paid..

So, these taxes are only paid by the morons. Is that what it's supposed to do?

That's not even the point, though. All those riches have been taxed already. It's private property, and should be protected, not chiseled at.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

If we are talking about some moral value...yes, there is a point where income is simply too much. Say $1 trillion/hr. might be, I say...might be too much. You never know in America.

The problem with income inequality isn't just the final figure, it is how one arrives at that figure, and how much it is taxed by society. For example as I've written before. Why is it that someone gets up at 11 am hits the back 9 and makes say $1 million in one year on capital gains and did pay 15%, now 20% in federal tax, while a Surgeon performs a life-saving skill and also open up a specialty office and makes a $1 million a year yet pays what 39% ? Why ?

Ok the investor has about $800,000 left over and the Dr has about $600,000 left over. Now the investor has $200,000 MORE he can re-invest than the Dr. Why ?

It results in what is called the wealth factor and one egregious example is Bloomberg had $3 billion (net worth) that was invested and 'earned' income and all of the while serving in a real job as mayor of NY for 12 years (making a good salary and paying about 35-39% federal tax) during which those $3 billion had accumulated or risen to $33 billion in investment 'earnings' and paid capital gains ($6.6 billion less in taxes) on much of it from a resulting much lower federal tax...increasing his wealth factor yet even more and for 12 years, and which continues today.

(the Koch bros. went from a combined net worth 2013 of $72 billion to $85 billion 2014 by 'earning' $13 billion in one year, taxed at substantially less then their highest salaried staff, why ?)

So the question becomes academic in as much as we know the answer is impractical...of no use. Apparently, no amount is 'too much income' but rather...how much should it be taxed ?

I say much higher, paying back society for its basic civil expenses in creating an economic environment where one can make ANY billion$.

Oh and just the wall street bonuses for 2014...bonuses ONLY amounted to twice as much, that's twice as much as ALL of the money earned at minimum wage in America. Yes, you read that right that's in addition to the 80 richest people in the world being as wealthy as the combined wealth of 3.6 Trillion of the world's poorest people.

So clearly, NO amount if money is...too much.

Oh and as for the OP and taxes you pay ? You could say it is because of the taxes...other don't pay.

Oh fucking...opps sorry for using a word that might be "bad" for sensitive ears. So, on the other hand there might be a minimum wage too high. Like, a trillion dollars an hour? Go ahead comment. Let's see where this goes.

Well I am sure there is a minimum wage too high but an experiment as untried as one in search of an income too high. However, even though admittedly it did take a few paragraphs, I did reply to the OP as written and you could start another OP.

I regard a minimum wage as simply a floor under which no worker should be forced to go given what's easily one morally justified and politically rationalized by the fact that there is no ceiling against which upper incomes are to be limited.

Here's how to morally raise minimum wages.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/seeded-with-tax-cuts-kansas-harvests-the-benefits-1431729743

I don't consider making a government so,powerful that it can grind any person under its heel and then have that government take things from one group, keep a substantial portion of the confiscated stuff to feed itself and then dispose of the rest so that it can buy votes to stay in power moral.

I recall a guy when I was young. He went in to the local barber shop and made a deal with the barber. The kid would clean up, sweep up hair and the barber gave him enough to buy chips and soda. As I recall he liked BBQ potato chips. In your immoral world that couldn't happen. The barber would be subject to civil penalties for violating minimum wage laws and the kid would be taught that initiative to earn things he wanted was illigal. Just can't see the morality.

I remember the absolute first time I was given a raise to above the minimum wage. It was a nickel an hour raise. I was pretty darned pleased and proud of the hard work I put in to get it. I was living out on my own. I had roommates to survive. Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage and learning hard work will raise you in life is a good thing. Teaching people they will be taken care of by the government and not having initiative was okay, as long as they owed allegence to government, is just an evil thing.

Well given that we have segued to a tangent, I will comment this far.

In that your example of the barbershop help, does not qualify for minimum wage, I suggest it is a quaint reminder that employers will at least try to take advantage of just about anybody.

I also remember my first raise above minimum wage and like it was yesterday. I was making $1.25/hr and the regional manager was walking and talking to the cashiers. When he got to me, he asked "How would I like a raise ?" Of course I replied that I would very much like a raise, he said "I thought so and you are now making $1.35/hr" while almost beaming as if he had rewarded me for my hard work and reliability.

When I recalled that while I very much appreciated his so touching concern, the minimum wage had very recently been raised to $1.35/hr., he turned red as a beet at his obvious embarrassment caused I am sure, by the realization that by law...he was forced to award me that raise and he and any merit of my work excellence...had nothing whatever to do with it.

As for your link...not even a nice try: HERE

Your link isn't working for me. I do recall my article mentioned left wing rags tried to ridicule the tax cut when it didn't work immediately. Perhaps yours is one of those..but I don't know as it won't work for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I don't consider making a government so,powerful that it can grind any person under its heel and then have that government take things from one group, keep a substantial portion of the confiscated stuff to feed itself and then dispose of the rest so that it can buy votes to stay in power moral.

Not only do Liberals want to confiscate money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't, but they rest on the "They didn't earn it, so they shouldn't get to keep it" argument to support a higher "death" tax. Talk about hypocrisy! They want to confiscate more money via the estate tax because the heirs "didn't earn it," to help distribute more to those who didn't earn it.
It's a fucking shell game.

omg.. how many actually pay estate tax? anyone with more than the amount where it kicks in has at least 1 trust (I know someone with 3 trusts!).. if you have money where the estate tax kicks in and you dont have a trust you are a total moron.. Rich people have the money to pay tax lawyers to keep any tax they pay (both when alive and when dead) down to the bare minimum.. do you have the luxury of hiring a tax lawyer to do that for you? no, you (you as in the 99%) go to H&R Block and get shitty (& very possibly incorrect) tax advice.. Every time the govt makes a move to tax the rich, the rich find 3 counter moves that gut the tax they would have paid..

So, these taxes are only paid by the morons. Is that what it's supposed to do?
That's not even the point, though. All those riches have been taxed already. It's private property, and should be protected, not chiseled at.

sure, just as income is taxed already but then chiseled at with the various taxes and fees imposed by all levels of govt.. why should anyone pay a sales tax to spend money they already were taxed on? you cant oppose one chiseling and ok another chiseling.. its people with no or low incomes that are hardest hit by the sales tax and other taxes/fees, much more so than the chiseling of estate tax (which can be sheltered if the rich that are morons didnt shelter).. and yeah, you have to be a moron to not shelter extreme wealth, its not like the govt is gonna spend that money wisely.. if you are gonna lose that money then ffs at least give it to a worthy and legit charity to do real good in the world..

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I'm good with a sales tax, actually. I like that it's not imposed on most foods, too. Taxing consumption, imo, is better than taxing income anyway. Who pays more in sales taxes? Those who are buying more. You don't want to pay more sales tax? Don't spend as much on taxable goods. There's no two ways about it, I understand. Everyone is going to end up paying sales taxes. It's just not possible to go without buying something taxable. In a grocery store, however, it's not that tough to walk out without paying a sales tax.

Just so you know, some of the national sales tax systems are as high as 23%, but there are no other sales taxes or income taxes at any level of government. So, every dollar used to buy something results in a 23% increase in the bill. What I don't care for in many of those national sales tax systems is that it's applied to everything bought, even food.

Those who consume more, pay more taxes. It puts an incentive on not consuming, which is something I think the US needs to work towards anyway.

ETA: Thanks for actually discussing this. It's refreshing every once in a while here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I'm good with a sales tax, actually. I like that it's not imposed on most foods, too. Taxing consumption, imo, is better than taxing income anyway. Who pays more in sales taxes? Those who are buying more. You don't want to pay more sales tax? Don't spend as much on taxable goods. There's no two ways about it, I understand. Everyone is going to end up paying sales taxes. It's just not possible to go without buying something taxable. In a grocery store, however, it's not that tough to walk out without paying a sales tax.

Just so you know, some of the national sales tax systems are as high as 23%, but there are no other sales taxes or income taxes at any level of government. So, every dollar used to buy something results in a 23% increase in the bill. What I don't care for in many of those national sales tax systems is that it's applied to everything bought, even food.

Those who consume more, pay more taxes. It puts an incentive on not consuming, which is something I think the US needs to work towards anyway.

ETA: Thanks for actually discussing this. It's refreshing every once in a while here.

well.. as a female that had to pay out for those monthly "girl things" (that guys never want to talk about) and having to pay sales tax on top of the cost or paying for toilet paper and other essentials that are taxed, i very much dislike sales tax.. I dont really think that sales taxes cause people to reduce consumption, things that are essential must be bought and people that have money want what they want so they will buy it anyway.. and rich/well off people can find ways to not pay tax on the most expensive things (or the cost is a business write-off)..

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm good with a sales tax, actually. I like that it's not imposed on most foods, too. Taxing consumption, imo, is better than taxing income anyway. Who pays more in sales taxes? Those who are buying more. You don't want to pay more sales tax? Don't spend as much on taxable goods. There's no two ways about it, I understand. Everyone is going to end up paying sales taxes. It's just not possible to go without buying something taxable. In a grocery store, however, it's not that tough to walk out without paying a sales tax.
Just so you know, some of the national sales tax systems are as high as 23%, but there are no other sales taxes or income taxes at any level of government. So, every dollar used to buy something results in a 23% increase in the bill. What I don't care for in many of those national sales tax systems is that it's applied to everything bought, even food.
Those who consume more, pay more taxes. It puts an incentive on not consuming, which is something I think the US needs to work towards anyway.
ETA: Thanks for actually discussing this. It's refreshing every once in a while here.

well.. as a female that had to pay out for those monthly "girl things" (that guys never want to talk about) and having to pay sales tax on top of the cost or paying for toilet paper and other essentials that are taxed, i very much dislike sales tax.. I dont really think that sales taxes cause people to reduce consumption, things that are essential must be bought and people that have money want what they want so they will buy it anyway.. and rich/well off people can find ways to not pay tax on the most expensive things (or the cost is a business write-off)..

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I don't consider making a government so,powerful that it can grind any person under its heel and then have that government take things from one group, keep a substantial portion of the confiscated stuff to feed itself and then dispose of the rest so that it can buy votes to stay in power moral.

Not only do Liberals want to confiscate money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't, but they rest on the "They didn't earn it, so they shouldn't get to keep it" argument to support a higher "death" tax. Talk about hypocrisy! They want to confiscate more money via the estate tax because the heirs "didn't earn it," to help distribute more to those who didn't earn it.
It's a fucking shell game.

omg.. how many actually pay estate tax? anyone with more than the amount where it kicks in has at least 1 trust (I know someone with 3 trusts!).. if you have money where the estate tax kicks in and you dont have a trust you are a total moron.. Rich people have the money to pay tax lawyers to keep any tax they pay (both when alive and when dead) down to the bare minimum.. do you have the luxury of hiring a tax lawyer to do that for you? no, you (you as in the 99%) go to H&R Block and get shitty (& very possibly incorrect) tax advice.. Every time the govt makes a move to tax the rich, the rich find 3 counter moves that gut the tax they would have paid..

So, these taxes are only paid by the morons. Is that what it's supposed to do?

That's not even the point, though. All those riches have been taxed already. It's private property, and should be protected, not chiseled at.

quote:

You said-

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There should be no limit on how much a person can make, as long as he/she is willing to work as hard as necessary to legally earn it.

I agree up with that however I would add that the person should not be allowed to lobby the govt to make laws favorable to that person (& those like him/her).. I am really sick and tired of that.. they go so far as to circumvent one govt by lobbying another govt.. for instance.. some cities/towns here in TX either banned fracking or were considering banning fracking.. so what do the rich pro-frackers do? they lobby the state govt to make those local laws invalid/illegal... This is what America is all about, screwing your fellow man to add even more money into your already fat wallet.. This country is pretty damn disgusting in how corrupt & greedy it is..

We agree. I'm not for lobbying, at least not the way it's currently being done. I'm all for ending all tax loopholes. I oppose selectively carving out loopholes, or selectively closing loopholes. If closing tax loopholes is the right thing to do, close 'em all (except for charities). I'd much rather have a flat tax, but would accept a progressive tax, provided the brackets and tax %'s aren't what I think is excessive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

I don't see your post as anything that wasn't mentioned in the post I linked. May link discussed the positive sides, such as wages are going up....which, I believe was the point I made. In the article I posted it mentioned what was said in this article. The only thing this article did was only discuss the one negative. In fact spending a great many words on the negative. It didn't discuss the positive affects also occurring. So is your point that you only want your news source to only discuss negative aspects rather than give a balanced perspective?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm good with a sales tax, actually. I like that it's not imposed on most foods, too. Taxing consumption, imo, is better than taxing income anyway. Who pays more in sales taxes? Those who are buying more. You don't want to pay more sales tax? Don't spend as much on taxable goods. There's no two ways about it, I understand. Everyone is going to end up paying sales taxes. It's just not possible to go without buying something taxable. In a grocery store, however, it's not that tough to walk out without paying a sales tax.
Just so you know, some of the national sales tax systems are as high as 23%, but there are no other sales taxes or income taxes at any level of government. So, every dollar used to buy something results in a 23% increase in the bill. What I don't care for in many of those national sales tax systems is that it's applied to everything bought, even food.
Those who consume more, pay more taxes. It puts an incentive on not consuming, which is something I think the US needs to work towards anyway.
ETA: Thanks for actually discussing this. It's refreshing every once in a while here.

well.. as a female that had to pay out for those monthly "girl things" (that guys never want to talk about) and having to pay sales tax on top of the cost or paying for toilet paper and other essentials that are taxed, i very much dislike sales tax.. I dont really think that sales taxes cause people to reduce consumption, things that are essential must be bought and people that have money want what they want so they will buy it anyway.. and rich/well off people can find ways to not pay tax on the most expensive things (or the cost is a business write-off)..

There are other options for those monthly "girl things." I admit I am not completely up on everything to do with it, but I am neither a girl, nor are any of my children. I know a gal who is using a "menstrual cup," though (never heard of it until her). That's an option, and it's purported to be a less expensive and less risky option.

Sure, a 5-7% sales tax isn't going to have a consumption reduction effect, unless you're really tight in the cash flow area. Imagine, however, what a 16-23% sales tax would do. Granted, you'd have all your income to pay that sales tax, but, a $4 pack of smokes, just became a $5 pack of smokes. That $10 12-pack just went from $10.70 to $12.30. That $75 bottle of scotch just went from a final cost of $80.25 to $92.25. You don't think people will start watching what they buy?