![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI am of a mixed mind on this.
1: I favor expanding healthcare. I think, honestly, it would be a good thing to have Medicare tweaked, and converted to a national health care (given that we already subsidise the present system with 200 billion in tax credits, to pay more, get less and have tens of million with no health care..., but that's all a different topic).
2: I am glad to see most people agree that kids ought to be covered (if for no other reason that a quick fix when the problems show up, and maybe the establishment of good habits both saves, and makes, money later).
3. It doesn't hurt that the veto/votes against make the present regime in the White House look more like the bastards they are.
But (had to be a but, because of that mixed mind): I don't think the present funding is the way to do it.
I have problems with sin taxes (honestly, I have problems with using the tax code to perform micro managements. Housing... Ok, because that's a leveller. Education, same thing. Encouraging the non-growing of soybeans... Not so much). If someone wants to buy booze, let 'em.
A tax to cover the costs of making sure the distillery is safe, no problem. A tax to discourage people from drinking by making it more expensive, not so much.
S-CHIP is built on a different idea. Smoking is bad (I'll grant that). Society, as a whole, is down on smoking (this isn't so bad). So we can soak the smokers to pay for something we want.
It's that last which bothers me. One, it's morally wrong to say, "we don't like what you do, so we're going to take your money; while leaving the thing you do legal."
Two, if this does what such taxes usually do (decrease the number of smokers), then the money will have to come from somewhere else.
There is a way the second can be avoided: the Government does things to keep the number of smokers, at least, constant.
I'd like to see someone just stand up and say, "We need to help kids. It will take money. "X" susbsidies/incentives/loopholes, are worth less than this is." Or just bite the bullet and say, "If we want this, we have to pay for it, the tax bite will go up by 5 cents per person."
Otherwise, we have to encourage smoking, accept that this is going to have rising costs, and diminishing revenues, or make smoking something the gov't encourages; for the sake of the children.
1: I favor expanding healthcare. I think, honestly, it would be a good thing to have Medicare tweaked, and converted to a national health care (given that we already subsidise the present system with 200 billion in tax credits, to pay more, get less and have tens of million with no health care..., but that's all a different topic).
2: I am glad to see most people agree that kids ought to be covered (if for no other reason that a quick fix when the problems show up, and maybe the establishment of good habits both saves, and makes, money later).
3. It doesn't hurt that the veto/votes against make the present regime in the White House look more like the bastards they are.
But (had to be a but, because of that mixed mind): I don't think the present funding is the way to do it.
I have problems with sin taxes (honestly, I have problems with using the tax code to perform micro managements. Housing... Ok, because that's a leveller. Education, same thing. Encouraging the non-growing of soybeans... Not so much). If someone wants to buy booze, let 'em.
A tax to cover the costs of making sure the distillery is safe, no problem. A tax to discourage people from drinking by making it more expensive, not so much.
S-CHIP is built on a different idea. Smoking is bad (I'll grant that). Society, as a whole, is down on smoking (this isn't so bad). So we can soak the smokers to pay for something we want.
It's that last which bothers me. One, it's morally wrong to say, "we don't like what you do, so we're going to take your money; while leaving the thing you do legal."
Two, if this does what such taxes usually do (decrease the number of smokers), then the money will have to come from somewhere else.
There is a way the second can be avoided: the Government does things to keep the number of smokers, at least, constant.
I'd like to see someone just stand up and say, "We need to help kids. It will take money. "X" susbsidies/incentives/loopholes, are worth less than this is." Or just bite the bullet and say, "If we want this, we have to pay for it, the tax bite will go up by 5 cents per person."
Otherwise, we have to encourage smoking, accept that this is going to have rising costs, and diminishing revenues, or make smoking something the gov't encourages; for the sake of the children.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-11 03:48 pm (UTC)The other side of this is the States buying into it, then whinging when the piper's fee is due. Aid to education is a good example. Under the Constitution, it's the business of the States. Now that the States have bought into it, it's the Feds business. The local politicians haven't the guts to say "no" and fund it themselves by increasing taxes.
State-supported colleges are an example of this. Most states charge a minimal fee for out-of-state students, to "encourage diversity in education." The problem is, the out-of-state fees are less than the state support per student. I suppose I'm a bit of a parochialist, but why should my tax money support some kid from Ohio's education (for example) at VMI or a Texan's support a Virginia kid at TAM? If the kid wants a military education, let him/her apply to one of the Federal military colleges or his state's military academy.
Ok, off the soapbox now.
:)