Tax Day

Like you need to be reminded, but it is tax day 2010. The Tea Party Day From Hell.

This Is Not About Obesity and Sodas Are Not "Food"

I have been seeing this advertisement, placed by Americans Against Food Taxes, every night on cable networks. It grated on my nerves the first time I saw it and I get more irritated with each subsequent viewing.

This fictional mother and her kids are shown driving through a neighborhood where families might be struggling to put food on the table, a foreclosed home, and then an "out of business" store front, finally arriving at her nice 2-story home in a well-to-do neighborhood, while driving a new car. I just don't buy the premise that she is indeed concerned that "those pennies add up."

I simply smell a Republican or a Libertarian who likes things just the way they are and has whatever selfish reasons for being opposed to a tax on sodas. If the average American soccer moms with the 2 1/2 children and the lovely homes on a bucolic suburban street are genuinely concerned about paying a soda tax, I'm quite sure they can find painless ways to offset the tax. How about adjusting the thermostat on the air conditioning one degree, or reducing the time the kids are slurping those sodas in front of the television by 30 minutes a day. Unplug a few gadgets in the house which you rarely use. Not only will you more than offset the soda tax, you'll be reducing your carbon footprint. Perhaps I'm asking too much.

The advertisement might have been more effective if the fictional family appeared to be living near the poverty level, driving a 15-year-old car, or taking the bus because they have no car.

On the other hand, perhaps it would be less effective because we don't really care much for seeing poverty in action. And some, including me, might wonder why a family barely squeaking by would be squandering money on sodas in the first place.

Another gripe I have is the way the soda tax proposals are being framed as a way to reduce obesity. Yes, it might work in a few instances, but that is clearly not the point, and it's a bad marketing move. It would make far more sense to frame it as a way to curtail tooth decay.

The fact that sugar-free sodas would be exempt also chaps my ass. The point of the tax is to raise billions of dollars in revenue from a non-essential product. If you are adamant against the tax, you can choose to opt out. And you know what? You'll be better off if you do! Sodas are not part of the food group pyramid and they have no positive health or nutritional benefits, even of they are sugar-free and caffeine-free. (At that level, I argue, what's the fucking point?! The only thing that isn't a big fat zero is the cost of it!)

Nevertheless, people with the financial means to buy sodas would continue to do so -- especially the addictive sodas with the caffeine -- and many people who are struggling financially would probably drop these unnecessary purchases. Many probably have already. And they will not suffer as a result, even if they cannot afford healthy, all-natural fruit juice. Why? Because there's absolutely nothing wrong with drinking water.

If we are serious about finding creative ways to pay for health care reform, or any of the dozens of other urgent needs in this country, we're going to have to buckle down and realize there is no free ride. We can do this in a variety of relatively painless ways, pennies here and pennies there, with all of us in this boat together, contributing in our own ways for a huge societal benefit, or we can fight and argue against any and every tax, regardless of how much or little it might affect us personally.

I am steadfastly against sales taxes on essential grocery items: dairy and soy products, grains, bread, beans, fruits and vegetables. However, we could makes huge strides in achieving and paying for universal health care by placing a small tax on non-essential items: processed foods, items packed with artificial flavors and colors, and candy! In doing so, we as a people would be promoting healthy responsible behavior while still allowing people the freedom to buy crap, if they can afford it. For those who can't afford it, they shouldn't be buying crap foods.

Whatever route we choose to go, you can bet your ass someone with a vested financial interest, particularly at the corporate level, isn't going to like it, and they will fight it. We must resist those fights.

Progress doesn't just happen; it requires an investment. It isn't free, nor is it cheap. But it is essential if we are to survive and prosper in the long run.

A Worthy Tax

You don't hear me pushing for higher taxes very often. I try to avoid paying sales taxes (even though I know they help the state and local communities) by ordering online as much as possible. And federal taxes are on a lower rung of my ladder because of how many of those tax dollars are spent.

However, I would not be against a variable gas tax, especially if the proceeds were used not just for a bailout of the auto industry, but to remove the bloat in that industry and force them to start producing high-quality, fuel-efficient vehicles which would clearly be in demand if we knew gas was never going to cost less than $3.50 a gallon.

I've been an advocate of this idea since at least 1980 when I suggested we should add a $1.00 per gallon tax on top of what was then a $1.20 gallon of fuel for two reasons: reduced consumption to wean us from imported oil, and as a source of funding for alternative transportation methods and building more efficient cars.

Twenty-eight years later, here we are. Daniel Sperling and Deborah Gordon, writing in today's New York Times, have the right idea.

The best bailout is one that weans us off oil and sets us on a path to reduced carbon emissions. Congress and President-elect Barack Obama are not qualified to protect shareholders’ interests, nor can they build a better car. But they can ensure that society benefits from our investment in the automobile industry.

One way to do that would be to establish a price floor of $3.50 per gallon on gasoline. If the price drops below that, as it recently has, the federal government would impose a variable tax to bring the price up to $3.50. If the price goes above $3.50, then the tax disappears. The money raised by the variable tax would be used, at least in the short term, to provide loan guarantees to the auto companies. (To ease the burden of higher gasoline prices on low-income taxpayers, some of the revenue would be provided to them as tax credits or vouchers.)

[...]

At current prices, a floor of $3.50 per gallon would generate more than $17 billion in one month — a big chunk of a $25 billion bailout. If, without the floor, gasoline averaged $2.50 per gallon over the next year, revenues would amount to $140 billion. That money could pay for a sound transportation policy agenda beyond the bailout.

I think we have demonstrated we can live with a $3.50 gallon as most of us were paying more than that in late summer. It's a tight fit financially for those struggling, and there are ways to provide assistance to those people truly in need.

With prices at the pump currently hovering just above $2.00 per gallon it would be an ideal time to bite the bullet and make a genuine effort to get ourselves out of this mess.

Meanwhile, Chevrolet is planning to introduce the Volt in 2010.

The Volt, which the company plans to begin selling in November 2010, should easily double the fuel economy rating of today’s mileage hero, the Toyota Prius. The Prius, which carries a 46 m.p.g. rating in combined city and highway driving, is a conventional hybrid that uses modest amounts of electricity to minimize the fuel consumed by its gasoline engine.

The Volt takes the opposite approach, relying mainly on electric power, with its gasoline engine running only when needed to stretch the driving range. The 100 m.p.g. automobile, which once seemed an impossible dream, will become an official E.P.A.-rated reality with the Volt’s arrival.

It's a shame GM didn't roll this thing out in 2007. Had they done so, maybe a bailout wouldn't have been quite so urgent.