Thursday, November 19, 1998
Imposed ideas tax public
CHOICE: Don’t force us to contribute to a cause we do not
believe in
Well, it looks as if Proposition 10 finally passed. Thank you to
all who decided that the government needs to regulate our health.
So, while we are talking about forcing people to lead healthy lives
by increasing taxes, I have come up with another novel idea that is
sure to raise plenty of revenue. Let’s start taxing all foods over
eight grams of fat. That’s right, if you want to consume anything
that tastes good, you will have to pay more. If you compare this
idea to some of the other laws being passed, it seems to make
perfect sense. After all, these products are hardly what one might
call salutary. If anything, they are more pernicious than
tobacco.
So here is the plan: For every gram of fat over eight, products
get taxed $1. A dollar a gram, that’s all I ask. And after all,
it’s for the children, and that’s all that matters anyway.
And there is plenty of revenue to be earned. A recent Time
magazine article said that Americans are at their most overweight
in years. You’ve seen the lines of people at In-N-Out and Diddy
Reese – there are millions of potential dollars to be earned. Think
of what we could do with all that money. Rob Reiner himself could
give every child in California a college scholarship.
In addition to the revenue, we will be forcing people to eat
healthier so they can live good, healthy lives. We will all live in
a society where everybody is perfectly healthy and where we have no
cigarettes or doughnuts or any of the bad things that people
actually enjoy. Soon we will all subsist on a diet of soybeans and
kelp, and we will have hundreds of new government programs
indoctrinating our children through our new found wealth in the
form of the fat tax.
Now the problem is what happens when all these people start
buying tofu and stop contributing to our children. Of course, if
they really cared about our children they would continue to stuff
themselves full of fatty foods. In the same way, if you care about
our children, you will start smoking 12 packs a day. Quitting now
would just bankrupt all of these new government programs. And that
would be a shame, because we all know how well government programs
have worked in the past. I am sure Reiner thought of all these
contradictions before writing Proposition 10. But then again, he
probably did not.
Of course, this relates to another novel idea that I have come
up with: If you like a government program, or some other
organization that you think is beneficial, fine, pay for it. Take
the money you earned yourself and voluntarily contribute to it at
will.
Granted, it will not do any good, but still, it makes some
people feel good about themselves. We will not coerce people into
paying for these programs against their will.
This applies to all government programs, be it welfare (personal
or corporate), the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the White
House internship program, or anything else funded by taxpayer
money.
There is a plethora of private organizations that seek to helps
children, ameliorates poverty, perpetuates the arts, protects
endangered species and inspects restaurants. And these programs
more often than not have a higher rate of success than any
government program.
But some might then argue, "Well what about majority rule and
the will of the people? The people voted for it, doesn’t that mean
that it is justified?"
Well, think about this, does that mean that 51 percent of the
population has the right to control the other 49 percent? If 51
percent of the population decided to reinstitute slavery, would
that be justified?
Majority rule means nothing, especially when we have an
electoral system that relies on demagoguery and five-second sound
bites to perpetuate a cause. Proposition 10 was a perfect example
of this: Let’s tax evil tobacco and give the money to our good
children. No claims were made as to how the programs would work,
but we are going after "big" tobacco, and that is all that
matters.
For example, on his web site
(http://www.children98.org/question.htm), Reiner gives three
reasons why we should vote for Proposition 10: "1) Tobacco taxes in
California have not been raised in 10 years and are below the
national average. A surtax on cigarettes is the type of tax which
is most likely to win voter approval.
2) Cigarette smoking is a major contributor to serious health
problems, including those that inhibit the development of
children.
3) Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death and disease
in California. There is strong evidence supporting a direct
correlation between raising the cost of a pack of cigarettes and a
decrease in consumption of cigarettes, especially among
teenagers."
Look at these reasons: Smoking is not taxed enough, it is bad
for you, and this is a good way to stop it. Where are the kids? I
thought this was all about the children? It looks like Reiner has a
personal vendetta against people who engage in activities he does
not like. And the third reason he gives just states the whole
contradiction of this bill. He wants to raise money, yet curb the
activity where the money comes from. I am not a math student, but I
can pretty much figure out if people stop engaging in an activity
that raises money, then less money will be raised. But that is just
me.
Reiner is typical of the Hollywood elite who try to pass
themselves off as morally superior. Here is Reiner, a man worth
millions of dollars, telling you that you have to pay more taxes.
Where did that come from? And who is he to tell us what is good for
us? Reiner should worry more about his own children and less about
everybody else’s.
In addition, he could find better things to spend his money on.
He spent $2 million of his own money to help pass Proposition 10.
Think of what else that could have done. He could have taken that
money, started a foundation and then gotten all of his limousine
liberal buddies to contribute their millions of dollars to the pot,
and have that go to somebody’s kids. But that would never
happen.
This further illustrates the vindictiveness of the left. There
are a number of ways that Reiner could have proposed to raise
revenue to give his friends government jobs. A sales tax increase
would probably raise more revenue and would distribute the cost
more equally. But no, we had to punish smokers. So, now our
children’s futures are linked to this deleterious activity just so
Rob Reiner could get a chip off his shoulder.
And after all, it’s really easy to tell other people what they
have to do with their money when you’ve never worked a day in your
life. I want to see Reiner and all the other Hollywood liberals try
working real jobs, trying to raise a family of six on $20,000 a
year. Let’s see how keen they are on raising taxes after that.
To sum up, let me just say that no one should tell you what to
do with your money, especially celebrities. If you feel spending
your money in a certain way will garner positive change, then feel
free. But it is immoral when people are forced to pay for something
they do not believe in. It does not matter if it is good for us or
someone else. That is our decision to make, not the government’s,
nor a film director’s.Matthew Gever
Gever is a SWM seeking an SF who likes hockey and Stanley
Kubrick films. Smoker preferred. Reply to him at
[email protected].
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]