"So If EATING MEAT Causes CLIMATE CHANGE, Let’s Tax It?" Topic

Bowman: "I read the link carefully and there is no mention of taxation in HIS argument, as the heading of this thread would suggest."

That's because I never said – anywhere on my post – that particular link would mention taxation. Read my original post as many times as you like, I never said it would.

This is what I said: "My VERY Vegan nephew showed me this and a couple of other articles (I presume, to push my buttons) and said that I need to get used to the idea that a large tax on meat might be just around the corner"

See now? I said that it was my nephew who used that link and others to justify the passing of such a tax in the future.

But then it only took a few seconds to pull up hundreds of other discussions and articles that clearly mention taxing beef to force people to change their dietary culture … presumably for the purpose of reducing global warming (climate change), though it seems it has more to do with the pro-globalism activists looking for ways to their enforce social engineering agendas on the US.

So the discussions are definitely happening. But you seem to only want to ignore or change the subject, or look for technicalities to dismiss the subject of this thread.

Bowman: "Only Dan mentioned taxation. Therefore all the arguing on this thread is over a straw man."

You are welcome to participate, of course, but no one is forcing you to continue if you don't want to. As for what benefit others see in the topic, or if they want it to continue discussing the topic of forced dietary cultures in Western nations in the 21st century, that's really up to each and every one of them to decide individually.

Dan

Why not levy a sales tax on beef? It doesn't offer anything in the way of nutrition that isn't available in other, healthier foods? I'll take pizza or fried chicken over beef any day. Considering how much beef is purchased in a year, that might generate enough revenue to fix our broken infrastructure. Though my friend back in NYC resents paying taxes for infrastructure, since he does not own a car. In fact, he has never even had a driver's license. He has a point. Why should he pay for the repair and maintenance of roads if he doesn't use them?

…….since he does not own a car. In fact, he has never even had a driver's license. He has a point. Why should he pay for the repair and maintenance of roads if he doesn't use them?

He has a point, just not a good one. He does use them, just not directly by driving on them himself.

Everything he owns, wears, uses, eats and the inevitable waste that he produces comes and goes by virtue of the infrastructure.

One day he may need the services of the police, the fire dept or the emergency medical services. The speed that they get to him, or get him to the hospital depends on the efficiency of the transportation.

Tell him he is not an isolated individual. His life, well-being and happiness depends on the society around him. For that to function well he needs roads, mobility and transportation.

By the way NYC is a big tax drain on the rest of NY state (already the highest tax burden in the US). So people in Buffalo also subsidize the NYC subway system, just for one example. Tell him that the next time he rides the A train.

"Why not levy a sales tax on beef?"

Have you been reading this thread???

I've argued against it as a misuse of the power of taxation (though residents of NYC are likely so used to this abuse of government power that the are inured to any moral or ethical issues surrounding it).
Of course, I am of the belief that if someone is engaging in behavior that imperils their own health, then they (and they alone) should pay for the consequences of that behavior. I suppose if you're in a socialized medicine society it makes sense that the government gets to regulate all manner of behavior so as to save itself money on the health costs of these. But I realize my society is at best simply an ideal as everything is constituted today.

I remain adamant that the purpose of taxation is to raise revenue, thus all taxes should be planned solely on that purpose— what is the structure that will generate the most revenue for public use while inflicting the least possible imposition on the people. It's a debateable structure, of course, but that is clearly the purpose and intention of the power of taxation delineated in the US Constitution. Taxation does not exist to punish the people for their behavior, nor to alter their behavior. That power is instead the purpose of law. Else why have the power to make law, when one can simply gain the effect of the law through taxation? Want to ban alcohol? Don't pass a law, just tax it at 100%. Do you see the problem here? Notice also that a tax is levied without any possibility on the part of the taxed to establish why they should not be taxed, unlike a law, which at least allows the person targeted by the punishment to establish that they are either innocent of the crime, or may indeed have mitigating circumstances that make the tax excessively burdensome or unjust. No, they have no choice but to either accept the burden on their budget or alter their behavior in the way the moralizing government prefers. (Talk about "legislating morality—" it certain fits the term!)

I, personally, am sick of the continuing efforts of the morally superior to make end runs around the legislative process to have their "holier-than-thou" preferences enforced by the threat of punitive government action. They do it through the courts, they do it through arbitrary "regulations" created by unelected bureaucrats, they do it through needlessly complicated and arcane taxes (which always seem to avoid their personal vices and tastes).

It is none of the government's business what I eat or drink, any more than it is any business of mine what you eat or drink, or what game you play, or what miniatures you buy, or what you think, believe, or choose to say. I would never seek to tax you out of your preference. Yes, I would consider legislative action regarding behavior that has a negative impact on others, but that should always be subject to a direct debate on the issue itself, with the resulting decision being just and easily understandable.

But, as I stated much earlier in this thread, the decision to tax beef won't achieve anything concrete with regards to resolving the claimed causes of claimed climate change. It's fundamentally absurd to think it will. What we need is proactive actions that eliminate the dangers while allowing people to behave freely with minimal imposition. I've posted my solutions. They are actually achievable, and will work. Unless the ridiculous notion that taxation or whatever other regulations will actually have any impact at all.

Final sentence should read: "Unlike the ridiculous notion… etc."
I'm blaming my clumsy fingers and autocorrect.