Now that Lukey gave up on that laughably bad idea called the Tuition Tax, he has laced his gloves up for an equally ludicrous fight. He wants to tax sugary drinks.
Because, you see, Burghers, sugar is bad for us and taxing things that are bad for us is what government likes to do.
That’s why there’s a tax on cigarettes and alcohol. Because the government thinks we should pay extra to partake of these life-shortening demon agents, because the government wants us to live as long as possible, because the longer we live, the longer they can tax us, and then they’ll death-tax us, and then they’ll tax any money we’ve left behind for our descendants until those descendants become old and die and on and on. It’s called the Circle of Life. Elton John wrote a song about it and everything.
Luke got this brizzilliant idea from Philadelphia’s mayor.
Mr. Ravenstahl on Tuesday said he’s interested in emulating Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter’s plan to impose a 2 cents-per-ounce tax on the sale of drinks such as soda, sweetened tea, energy drinks and flavored water.
Diet drinks and fruit juices would be exempt.
This is hilarious. The cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have determined that natural sugar, real sugar, is unhealthy and artificial sweeteners are A-OKAY! They want you to dump the man-made chemicals in your body and eschew the natural stuff. They are encouraging you to drink soda with aspartame in it versus water with natural flavoring.
What a slap in the face of Mother Nature. I guess they’re still pissed at her about her outlandish behavior this winter.
Also, please don’t forget this about Lukey:
Formerly an avid BlackBerry user, he retired the device in June. Too distracting, he said, adding that he is now forced to delegate better. Instead of drinking coffee, he keeps his energy up with help from 12 Diet Pepsis a day.
That’s right. Lukey has a dozen-a-day Diet Pepsi addiction. It’s in his best interest to leave the artificial sweeteners alone, even though articles like this are rampant all over the mainstream media, like this one from CBS which states:
People who drink diet soft drinks don’t lose weight. In fact, they gain weight, a new study shows.
Lukey is not only taking this sugary drink tax idea and hopscotching down the sidewalk with it, he’s offering his full support to Philadelphia’s mayor:
Ms. Doven said Mr. Ravenstahl and Mr. Nutter were to discuss the tax proposal by phone Tuesday. Mr. Ravenstahl also sent his counterpart a letter of support.
“Know that you have an ally across the state that is ready and willing to join you in this fight,” the letter said.
OMG, the hyperbole. It is SUGAR for the love of God, not meth. Is Mr. Nutter going to go to his council waving Lukey’s letter all, “Hey, look! That kid over there in Pittsburgh thinks this is a fantastic idea, too!”
Also, I should note that Philadelphia is considering taxing sugary drinks to support healthy living initiatives for its residents, whereas Lukey is looking to tax sugary drinks to fund the pension. Makes TOTAL sense.
What next? The Hydrogenated Fats Tax to benefit the purchase of police cruisers? A Processed Cheese Food Tax to fund road repairs? The White Bread Tax to help fight the war on potholes? The Chocolate Tax to fund firefighting training? The Little Debbie Tax to fund –
Gasp!
DON’T YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT IT, LUKEY. You want to go after Little Debbie, you’ll have to get through me and my army of Nutty Bars to get to her.
[awkward kung fu moves]
Category: Eye rolls, Mayor Ravenstahl | tags: Luke Ravenstahl |
March 17, 2010
|
|
ShareThis
-
burghertime Says:
We get taxed so the government can provide subsidies to farmers who grow corn that gets turned into corn syrup which goes into sugary drinks that they can then tax us on. Makes perfect sense. The Beatles wrote a song about this: “Don’t ask me what I want it for…ah ah, Master Lukey! If you don’t want to pay some more…ah ah, Fast Eddie!”
Or something like that.
-
Still A Fan Says:
The war on snow is over?
-
Summer Says:
Is there NO ONE who will Gibbs slap him when he comes up with a dumb idea? It’s not even HIS dumb idea, it came from PHILLY! When was the last time anything good came from Philly? Anything ‘Burghers wanted to imitate?
… ?
I thought so.
-
Jagoff Says:
“willing to join you in this fight.”
Exactly what is being fought here? -
dand Says:
How to turn ‘burghers against the sugar tax: point out that, not only are we trying to copy Philly, both Philly and Pittsburgh are trying to emulate NYC. That should play in to the big-city inferiority complex quite nicely.
(NY had this idea a year ago well before it came up in Philly: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/health/09soda.html)
-
Donncha Says:
The government does not tax tobacco and liquor because they are bad for us. They tax them because they are viewed, in the parlance of the economist, as “inelastic demands.” That is to say that someone addicted to tobacco or alcohol will pay whatever is demanded for those items, at least within a certain top limit. That is why tobacco and alcohol are such moneymakers in the tax game. What Lukey and Nutter have calculated is that people must have their sugar jags sated. It’s a problematic theory because the stuff can be obtained by other means. It is testimony to both their cynicism and their mental density.
-
Traveller Says:
Summer: Gibbs only slaps people he likes. That pretty much leaves no one to Gibbs Slap Lukey.
Wait. “Taxing things that are bad for us…” Income tax… you make income from working. AHA! I knew it work is bad for you. I quit! I’m going home. Wait. Home. Property. Property tax. w00t! I’m selling my house and riding the rails. Finally, I can justify being a hobo.
-
Anne K. Says:
I’m from Philly, and my mom told me about this weekend. My exact response was “well, I guess it’s a good thing that I live in Pittsburgh.” I don’t think it would be *so bad* if it were 2 cents PER bottle or something like that. But it’s 2 cents PER ounce. so a 24 oz bottle will be 50 cents more.
Stupid.
-
Jake Says:
It’s a desperate grab to get tax money from Lukey’s old nemesis: commuters… All those (to paraphrase Lukey) lazy, freeloading bastards who don’t provide monetary support to the city that they use to make their living while sucking down city resources like a councilman on a bender. Curse them for not wanting to live under his benevolent rule and gladly fork over an additional 2% municipality tax for the honor!
Pittsburgh doesn’t really have enough grocery outlets to really have this be targeted at residents anyway – it’s aimed squarely at the 7-11s and CVSs that supply the office minions with carbonated caffeine at 2PM.
-
AJR Says:
I just heard about this. I don’t even know where to begin, but ridiculous!
-
Baba Wawa Says:
if philly and pittsburgh does this, then it won’t be long before the whole state gets in on it….i don’t relish traveling to west virginia to stock up on my mountain dew
-
bluzdude Says:
As long as they keep their grubby hands off my Diet Coke. Hang the studies… if I have a choice of a 200 calorie drink or a 0 calorie drink, I’m saving the 200 big ones. They’d be much better spent on bacon.
Gaaaaasp! Please God, don’t let them tax my bacon!!!
-
Greg Says:
This is worse than you think people… 2 cents tax per ounce. For a 20 oz bottle… that is 40 cents in tax. For a 2 liter bottle… that is 1.28 in taxes… now… most of us buy pop when it is 99 cents… so now, you would be paying more in taxes than the item in the bottle is deemed to be worth. This cannot, and should not EVER happen… this is reverse taxation… and very very wrong…
Lead the charge Ginny!
-
BIGGEORGE Says:
He should be spending more time on creating more jobs in the city, Improving the city environment.
That would bring more people into the city, tax paying people.
Not minimum wage jobs either. You need to be able to afford to pay the city taxes
-
spoon Says:
I want all of the people who elected this jackass to come forward so I can slap every one of you with a delicious bass.
what a joke.
-
Joe K. Says:
So if you get a rum-and-coke at the bar, you’re getting taxed twice, right?
-
Silica Says:
Or we could eliminate federal subsidies on corn production and tax the crap out of foods containing high fructose corn syrup, which would help healthy living and help correct a totally effed-up agricultural system.
But I guess that wouldn’t solve the Pittsburgh pension problem.
-
Linda Says:
Soooo many questions – I just read the article. Unsweetened tea is not included. But what if I order unsweetened tea and then add sugar? Will they charge tax on the free sugar packet? And is it only within city limits? So a case o’soda bought at Mt. Washington Foodland would be taxed but not a case bought at Brentwood Giant Eagle? It is just ridiculous this is the best he can come up with. He should impose a flooding tax next. If you get flooded, pay the tax! Or he could tax the Pirates. Every time they lose, pay the tax!
-
Kim Z Says:
The problem with “sin” taxes is that if they are successful as a deterrent your revenue DECREASES overtime. This has happened with the tobacco settlement money. Originally it was supposed to go to healthcare to offset the additional healthcare costs of smoking-related illness, but states started using the money for other stuff, like education. Meanwhile people smoked less, the revenue decreased, and suddenly schools didn’t have enough money. Unless Lukey intends to use the sugary drink tax to directly subsidize insulin shots, it doesn’t make any sense.
-
Karen Says:
Well, I’m in the minority here but I think it’s a great idea. Dissuade the use of these harmful products (and HFCS is not natural sugar). Make someone think twice before putting that stuff in their bodies. Make it cheaper to buy juice that at least gives SOME nutrients with all the sugar than it is to buy pop that is just chemicals added to water. And yeah, I also think that commuters who use up city resources (like all the snow removal resources in the city that were diverted downtown instead of to the neighborhoods where people actually live) should pay a tax to work in town.
please pardon my grumps. =D
-
dayafternext Says:
I live in NY, and our governor (Paterson) was adamantly pushing a similar proposal in early ’09, with support from our mayor (Bloomberg). For various reasons, their efforts failed — at least partially due to lobbying from the beverage producers. So don’t fret too much just yet. I think this goes the way of the tuition tax.
-
Carpetbagger Says:
What’s next? A pierogie tax? A terrible towel tax? Can we have taxes with fries on top?
Skippy says that since there’s no Skank Tax, it must not be a sin.
Now I’m confused.
-
dand Says:
@Karen <- hear hear. An alternative would be for the City to annex the adjacent suburbs. With steel beams.
-
Erik Says:
Chemical sweeteners are scary. High-fructose corn syrup, which accounts for the vast majority of the “sugar” in the taxable drinks, is pretty scary as well, both economically and nutritionally.
Can’t we all just guzzle black coffee all day long like I do?
-
Jen Says:
haha, when I heard about this on the radio my first thought was “I bet the mayor drinks diet pop.” boy was I right. a dozen a day. wow, he might need an intervention.
maybe the next one will be a primanti sandwich tax. maybe then pittsburghers will wake up.
-
YinzerInExile Says:
Ok, but erm . . . ingredients-wise (using Pepsi as an example), sugar is lodged between caramel and phosphoric acid. There is more brown coloring in pop than there is sugar. Why is this not a caramel coloring tax?
I know it’s neither here nor there. I just feel compelled to point out that they’re not actually taxing “sugary” drinks so much as they’re taxing “high fructose corn syrupy” drinks, and that they give financial considerations to the people who make that ingredient (as burghertime pointed out), rather than taxing *them* for producing something that’s been shown to interfere with hormones that regulate metabolism ultimately, it is surmised, leading to even less healthy burghers.
-
spoon Says:
@Joe K – the sugar tax, drink tax, johnstown flood emergency tax, probably some opening fee so we’ll call that the cap tax, oh and then there’s auto gratuity so you have the shitty service tax or the watered-down-drink tax (bite me ppl, I used to bartend I can say that, just like pollocks can pick on the polish and Skippy can pick on sluts)
-
YinzerInExile Says:
@Karen — while I agree with you in principle, are you not jut a liiiiiiiiiittle uncomfortable with the government thinking (at least on paper) that it knows what’s best for you to eat/drink?
I mean, if people want to shovel HFCS into their gullets by the truckload, honestly, why do I care? And, more importantly, why should the government care to the point that it effectively charges you more to do so? What happens if you consume something that some other people think you shouldn’t, and those people tax aforementioned something? Do they know what’s best for you?
-
Sooska Says:
artificial sugars of all kinds make me sick as a dog. so can I sue Luke for discrimination?
@Karen, juice isn’t good for anyone either, especailly babies and children. you might as well mainline sugar straight to the pancreas. it teaches kids to suck on a bottle filled with sugary crap. there is no real “nutrition” in juice (everything is added these days)- and no fiber. don’t ever drink juice. Eat the fruit – you get the nutrition and the fiber.
-
Elmer Fudd Says:
Maybe they need to have a tax on colored underwear..That way little Lukey will know how it feels..
-
empirechick Says:
When is someone going to wake up and realize that the real problem in the city is the non-profits?? Yes, I know how many people they employ, and that’s a good thing. But look how much real estate tax the city loses on them…
I’m not talking about churches or the libraries or things that have been here forever. This is a serious question – is there a single doctor’s office in town that isn’t part of UPMC or West Penn or AGH?? Every time UPMC picks up another practice, that building isn’t taxable anymore.
And really, what is non-profit about UPMC? The last time the heat was on them for their $600M surplus (or whatever they call profit), they oh-so-generously put up $100M to fund Pittsburgh Promise. Luke surely wasn’t going to hammer them after that. Hush money, anyone?
But it’s OK, Pittsburgh, keep electing the dudes with the D after their names. Cuz 40+ years of one party rule has worked out so well for you. (And I’m a Dem, BTW, but seriously, something’s got to change.)
I was all for giving Luke a chance. ‘So what if he’s young, maybe he’ll be better than the old fogies.’ Nope. New young face, same old politics. It’s not about what’s best for Pgh, it’s what’s best for his political future.
-
empirechick Says:
*my mistake, that’s 76 years of one party rule
-
Monty Says:
I’m no history buff, but I sort of feel like a government trying to tax tea has been tried before, and it went over like a fart in church.
-
Brianne Says:
He is really sticking it to all the red bull and vodka drinkers…better get some extra security to station square STAT!
-
Richmond K. Turner Says:
Sooner or later, Pittsburgh, you going to have to pay the freaking pension piper. For more than a generation, you have allowed your politicians — including Lukey — to promise city workers pensions benefits that are totally unsustainable. You have elected the same people over, and over, and over again, even though they kept turning around and giving city employees a far, far better deal than you could ever hope to get in your own workplace.
And every single time that anybody has ever suggested that you will have to cough up some tax money to pay for your own stupidity in electing these fools, you scream and yell about how unfair it is. So the politicians end up caving into everybody. They keep paying off the unions with unsustainable benefits. And they keep borrowing money so that you don’t have to pay for your choices. All they — and you — have been doing is delaying the inevitable, while making the problem even worse by kicking this can even further down the road.
If this tax is so damn bad, then what would an acceptable one be? You’ve already delayed paying for these pensions for two decades, if not more, and it’s not working. Delaying is just making things worse, and sticking the bill to kids who weren’t even born when you first allowed your leaders to promise these pensions without any plans to pay for them.
Sooner or later, you have to pay for your poor choices. Even this tax, which has gotten so many of you worked up, doesn’t come close to covering your costs. But at least it’s a start.
-
SpudMom Says:
@spoon – just makes sure that you do so to the strains of The Fish Schlapping Song from Spamalot.
-
Lauren Says:
Perhaps a better idea would be to *gasp* phase out the pensions for city workers (who gets a pension anymore from their job?) and cap the maximum amount that can be collected over a lifetime. Also, if your income is over a certain amount, say, $50,000 before your pension (and there are PLENTY of people this applies to) you don’t collect it any longer. We’re all being asked to give with these higher taxes, shouldn’t the pension funders have to give as well?
-
KGC Says:
@Richmond Turner.. @Lauren.. Well said.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the politicians, any politician would finally stand up and say “Enough is enough!” CUT, CUT, CUT. Cut Pensions, Cut Compensation, Cut Programs.. Not slow the rate of growth.. a real honest-to-goodness Cut.
How many normal people get to retire with 75%-90% of our salary as a Pension? Based on highest years of earnings (aided by overtime featherbedding and conspiracy by Union members to aid retiree-to-bes get overtime.. Don’t kid yourself.. it happens.)
Want to bet there are many programs duplicated by the City, the County, the State and the Federal Government? (That would be quadiplicated, I think?) How damn many work placement/training programs do we need? Offer ONE. You get my point.
Why should public sector employees be immune to wage and salary cuts? Again, not “no raise”. A CUT in compensation.
Why should public sector bureaucracies operate with the same number (or more) employees than 3, 4, 5, 6 or more years ago? Fire employees.. suck it up. You’d be surprised how much work can get done. Too often, the work expands to fit the day.
-
Tiffany Says:
But he will keep on being mayor and getting re-elected, because that is how these things go. Facepalm. Luke is one of the reasons I was glad to leave the city.
-
Luke Steelerstahl Says:
Anyone have any better ideas?
Anyone? Anyone? Zober?
-
Tiffany Says:
@ Karen, When I was a commuter, I DID pay a tax to work in town, it was called the occupation privilege tax, does that no longer exist?
-
stephanie Says:
don’t hate me, but i would pay a white bread tax to fight the war on potholes on campbell’s run road.
-
spoon Says:
@SpudMom – FINLAND! FINLAND! FINLAND!
-
Luke Steelerstahl Says:
@35 Richmond K. Turner:
City employees get worse pay and worse benefits than the suburbs. Especially police. Why do you think the City acts as a training academy for police? Because they get a job here, get some experience, then go work in McCandless for better pay and better retirement benefits.
Maybe I should run for mayor of Cranberry – I already have an “in” up there….
-
Luke Steelerstahl Says:
Also at Lauren and KGC
Did you know that Firemen and Police officers don’t get social security benefits? That’s why their municipal pensions are higher (50% – not 90%)
-
Luke Steelerstahl Says:
“Why should public sector bureaucracies operate with the same number (or more) employees than 3, 4, 5, 6 or more years ago?”
So what is Pittsburgh’s option? They already cut 1/4 of their workforce from 6 years ago. They cut half their workforce from 20 years ago. They cut 75% of their workforce from 50 years ago.
Did the City get fixed? No, it got fucked.
Thanks suburbs. And UPMC. -
Grover Cleveland Says:
Personally, I think they should work on doing a taxation on gaseous post-rectal discharge (farting). That would be a meesage to sent
-
Mac S. Says:
Sadly, pensions are a thing of the past as they are simply no longer sustainable. Just get your kiddos used to the idea of supporting you though. If not for a pension (from another state, hold the rotten tomatoes) after the stocks, and likewise their retirement investments, plummeted a few years back Ma and Pa Mac would be living in the guest room.
-
bucdaddy Says:
I don’t think it would be *so bad* if it were 2 cents PER bottle or something like that. But it’s 2 cents PER ounce. so a 24 oz bottle will be 50 cents more.
—
Right, because nobody is going to stick to the actual tax and raise the price 48 cents. Who pays $1.97 or $2.47 for anything? It’ll be $1.99 or $2.49. So who gets the extra 2 cents? The city? State? Retailer?Huh?
My 2 cents.
At least they’re calling it what it is, a tax. Bucdaughter goes to grad school in Connecticut and we were up there in October, just at the time the state was adding water bottles to its bottle bill. This gets sold as a green initiative, and it’s that, but in fact the state of Connecticut was counting on millions and millions of water bottles going unredeemed for millions and millions of nickels to help plug the state’s budget gap.
So it was really a tax increase.
I don’t care if they want to raise the tax on something, I can choose not to buy the product*. But don’t lie or somehow just forget to tell me what the point of the bill actuually is.
*–Almost. Down here in West by-God we just dodged a huge increase in the tax on beer that would have gone to fund … wait for it … addiction treatment programs.
-
bucdaddy Says:
that’s 76 years of one party rule
—
That’s worked out pretty well for West Virginia.Hasn’t it?
Oh, wait …
-
Bojacques Says:
“D” is for duhhhhhhh…….
-
Clementine Says:
TWELVE Diet Pepsi’s every day??!! Is that cans or bottles? Doesn’t that equate to something like 24 pee breaks in a day? And we wonder why he can’t be found… Lukey’s in the bathroom, people!
-
Bojack Says:
@Empirechick-
UPMC’s $100 mill surplus??
Try @11 BILLION !!!
And it (all the Blues) was originally given non-profit status cuz
it’s supposed to be an insurance “co-op” for people with out money.Meaning, it was supposed to operate at bare bones, without a profit, to keep rates down and affordable for people who couldn’t afford retail. LOL
So, why the @11 BILLION stash???
THAT’s the $11 BILLION question!
-
Bojack Says:
TYPO- I meant Highmark.
-
Bojack Says:
@Monty-
Why do you think they want to take away your 2nd amendment rights now?
Look what happened with the tea thingie!
-
Sexy Jesus Says:
Luke Steelerstahl,
Pretty sure that the suburbs have little to do with the City’s inability to run an effective, non-corrupt government or elect someone other than the Boy Blunder. If you need a bogey-man, stick with UPMC.
As for the tax, I say anything that might make Pittsburgh thinner (good God that rolls) is a good thing, but – as mentioned above – this tax won’t accomplish that. Lukey fails again. Shocking!
-
Donncha Says:
I used to be addicted to tobacco taxes. Now I’m addicted to sugar taxes. The sugary drink tax: the methadone of revenue enhancers.
-
Dan (Not Onarato) Says:
OK before he taxes this…NOW…can I just ask (again) where is the $16 million from the G20.
Did we get that and I missed it? Ive been out of the loop
-
Steelman Says:
When we get Obamacare it will be necessary that people die sooner so that they are not a burden on the health system. So the government will abolish all alcohol and cigarette taxes to expedite the death process. In fact, they may takeover the alcohol and tobacco industry and give subsidies to needy people to facilitate the purchase of alcohol and cigarettes. So don’t worry about a “soda tax” – it will be short-lived.
-
PittinDC Says:
I’m pretty sure that getting ideas from Philly is never the right thing to do. I’m pretty sure that getting ideas from Patterson in NY is even worse.
However, just because you change the party of the person in charge doesn’t automatically mean better. Maryland tried that when they elected a republican to be governor while I was in college. He made things worse. They are back to a democrat now.
-
Mayor Luke Doggy Dogg Says:
Bow wow wow, yippee-yo, yippee-yay, Luke Doggy Dogg is in da hizzouse…!
See…what it iz ya’ll. Tha Lukey needs ta get mo’ money so it can fund his vagtastic voyages to tha strip clubs and pay fo’ dem hoes.
Remeber ya’ll. “Pimpin’ ain’t easy…but it’s necessary. Luke Doggy Dogg is chasin’ money from ya’ll bitchez like Tom chasin’ Jerry.”
-
Awesome Says:
Don’t bitch Pittsburgh! You elected him, now deal with it! It never ends with this clown…
2005 arrest
Lemieux Golf Tournament incident
Toby Keith SUV garbage
2008 Stanley Cup banner crap
G20 “FU… Vic Walczak”
Tuition tax
Ravenstahl Trash Cans
Feb 2010 Mardi Gras BS
…and NOW the sugar water tax. LMFAO!! I love it!Pittsburgh, please keep electing him!
-
northside15212 Says:
I don’t even know where to begin. The fact is, municipal governments could care less about the health of their residents; they only want money, and they’ll say and do anything to get it, particularly in today’s flagging economy. A “sugary drink” tax is only the latest idea, or what passes as an “idea,” in the never-ending quest to subsidize the overly generous and unrealistic promises that elected officials have made to their respective bureaucratic work forces.
Whoever it was that blamed the non-profits and the suburbs for the shortfall in government revenue sidesteps the real issue here: government’s insatiable appetite for cash. I would submit that commuting suburbanites are a net gain on city revenues –their houses don’t catch fire in the city, they apply no pressure on city police services relative to the crime profile of the city, and their impact on infrastructure within city limits is negligible relative to the taxes they pay on parking, “privilege tax,” drink taxes, and the money they spend on lunch, dry cleaning, dinner, and other goods while they’re here. Realistically, if we banned the entry of suburbanites into the city for a month, the city would collapse into itself like a dying star.
As to the rate of the proposed tax –it is merely a trial balloon and, as always, an over-inflated balloon at that. Two cents on the ounce is excessive and the Mayor knows that, but should he really be serious about trying to pass such a tax, two cents on an entire bottle is something he can accept and will be far more palatable to the electorate when it is proffered as a “compromise” to the two cents on the ounce. The dumb ass citizens will think they actually won when they pay the two cents per bottle. It’s just legislative strategy.
-
Just A Simple Man Says:
Can you impeach a mayor?
-
Greg Says:
I think all the fervor against this tax is hypocritical.
As a smoker and drinker, I pay MORE than my share if taxes. Where was this hue and cry the last time they raised the cigarette tax? I guess it’s fine as long as it’s someone else’s money. I welcome a tax on things I don’t use. Time for the rest of you to step up.
Along those lines of thinking, the city should consider a jogging and biking permit tax. These people use city services to maintain the sidewalks, bike paths and parks. Also, they need EMS if they twist an ankle or take a fall.
-
Bojack Says:
@Dan (not the Ho)-
They (Lukey’s staff) claim “the check’s in the mail,” for like maybe some time after Aug, Nov, next Feb.
Translation- “until sometime after you all hopefully forget about it”You didn’t see the Fed govt in any delay paying AIG did you?
Of course it’s horse shit.
@PittinDC-
Wow! That’s some power logic there! Do you work for the federal govt in DC? College? Where?? Sneaker Tech??
***How about a fat and stupid tax??***
Just work out a tax schedule based on % of weight over your
body mass index??$10 per lb. over your BMI
How about a non-voter tax? You pay $500/year, but, $250 is
refunded if you vote in May, the other $250 if you vote in Nov!@
-
Jen Says:
This city will NEVER dig itself out of its financial mess by creating new taxes.
The problem with this proposal and just about every other proposal by this administration, is that they don’t address the underlying problem. The city needs revenue because its pension is underfunded. Why is the pension underfunded? Bad fiscal management (under-funding and borrowing against it to pay for other services) and bad pension policy (promising benefits that are unsustainable). Another underlying cause is extended population and job losses in the city. Fewer residents and fewer companies means less tax revenue.
The city has to fix this problem, and it is obligated to fulfill the promises it has already made, so it must come up with new revenue. The city should focus on policies that attract new businesses and residents. Adding new taxes of any kind will only accelerate population and business losses.
-
Yinz Meets Y'all Says:
Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy here. To be fair, there’s lots of hypocrisy, but I’m specifically referring to loophole for diet drinks. Diet pop is a joke; it’s no better for you than the regular stuff. It’s a stupid tax anyway, but if they want to do this, it should be all or nothing.
Also, great point above by Greg that the 99 cent 2-liters will be doubled in cost because of the overburdening tax. Fail fail fail.
-
Kathy Says:
#45: That is untrue; they do get ss benefits — they pay ss taxes out of their paychecks just like everyone else. Their pensions are so high because they are part of a union which lobbies the government for such a high pension payment per the state legislature, which then the local governments have to find a way to pay for.
-
gunnlino Says:
Yeah, and yadda, yadda, yadda. Keep pulling that “D” lever in the voting booth.
-
mizzpenz Says:
I was born in your fine city and live in the Harrisburg area now. I travel to Pittsburgh more than twice a month on a regular basis. I frequent your bars, restaurants, sports arenas and stadiums. I drink your taxed beer (more of it than I should!) I keep up with Pittsburgh current events every day. It pains me to see the BS that goes on with your Mayor and his administration. There are others like me that pour money into your economy on a regular basis that are NOT going to be pleased with this continued taxation on every day life. Lukey walks around with blinders on and does not see the bigger picture here at all. You don’t raise taxes in a recession, you cut spending. For the life of me, I just can’t understand why it is so hard for people to understand this.
-
Sugar Tax is a Bacon Tax | Mr. Baconpants Says:
[...] On today’s show Sean and I went down a road we promised we would never go down on Bacon LIVE, politics. But this political topic was to close to bacon for comfort. The Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh is talking about the idea of a sugar tax on sugary drinks. Even fellow famous Pittsburgh bloggers are pissed about the idea. [...]
-
Bojack Says:
Here’s a real shocker!!
Gee, you’d think the Allegheny County DA might have better things (let alone more ethical) things to do than investigate their political rivals!
Like prosecuting drug and gang crimes, local political corruption, ooops……
Court won’t stop Zappala’s investigation of Orie
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Associated PressRead more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10077/1043854-100.stm?cmpid=latest.xml#ixzz0iXZIRsqj
-
CarolineFB Says:
Glad to live in Westmoreland County. Today, anyway.
-
Angry Mongo Says:
I’m wondering if I’m going to make Lukey’s “List” with my post today about this whole mess.
Here’s a simple solution.
If we can’t be left to make decisions about our health as consenting adults then get rid of all the things we are told are bad for us.
OR
Balance your budget better.
But don’t lie to us and say it’s in our best interest to try and curb bad behavior by taxing it. It’s just oportunistic to pick on that folks.
-
chris Says:
i am pretty sure that the government taxes stuff that we buy a lot of. people are addicted to alcohol and cigarettes, so they tax it. we’re addicted to gasoline, so they tax it. we drink a crap-ton of sodapop, so why not tax it?
