Cuyahoga County Sin Tax

• joebialek

  This issue is the absurdity of absurdities. Let me get this straight: the purpose of the Sin Tax is to gouge those who purchase alcohol and cigarettes not because anyone is trying to discourage consumption but rather so the County can use that money to pay for sports stadiums that do not produce anything but a fleeting moment witnessing the passing of a football, the dribbling of a basketball and ...the throwing of a baseball so that such a minute tidbit of diversion can be enjoyed by all. The stupidity of this proposition is enough to make your head spin even though the spin doctors advocating passage of this nonsense are already doing a pretty good job of hypnotizing the voters to actually consider supporting it. At least the Robber Barons of the previous centuries provided something tangible such as oil, steel, railroads etcetera. These team owners do not even provide one tangible thing that could ever be considered with the term “value added.” Almost everyone discusses this “enterprise” as though it is the same thing as industry {which it is not}. The price of admission is essentially a voluntary tax paid by those who can afford it to pay those who don’t need it. If this isn’t a transfer of wealth I don’t know what is.
  
  The real outrage here is the fact that taxes on alcohol and cigarettes will not be used to aid in the reduction of addiction {hence the reference to “sin”} but rather to stuff the pockets of all three teams who could easily afford to pay for the repairs themselves. The vote was rammed through the last time {under somewhat suspicious circumstances} and hear we go again. But this time...not so fast!!! We the voters of Cuyahoga County are going to fight the proponents on this one and we don't care if the teams up and go somewhere else {please see my views on entertainment below} because quite frankly there are simply more important things than sports and the unearned money that comes with it. Those in public office who are too stupid and lazy to find other ways to grow a major American city need to resign and leave their self-seeking political ambitions on the scrapheap of history. Don’t ever let it be said that this was time when the tide ran out on Cuyahoga County but rather was the time when the voters rose up to welcome the rising tide of change and rebuked this pathetic paradigm our previous elected leaders embraced. Let the battle be joined.
  
  And now to the real underlying issue at hand:
  
  One of the most disturbing facts about our capitalist nation is the misappropriation of funds directed to the salaries of entertainers. Everyone should agree that the value an athlete, movie star, talk-show host, team-owner, etcetera brings to the average citizen is very small. Granted, they do offer a minuscule of diversion from our daily trials and tribulations as did the jesters in the king's court during the middle ages. But to allow these entertainers to horde such great amounts of wealth at the expense of more benevolent societal programs is unacceptable. They do not provide a product or a service so why are they rewarded as such?
  
  Our society is also subjected to the "profound wisdom" of these people because it equates wealth with influence. Perhaps a solution to this problem and a alternative to defeated school levies, crumbling infrastructures, as well as all the programs established to help feed, clothe and shelter those who cannot help themselves would be to tax this undeserved wealth. Entertainers could keep 1% of the gross earnings reaped from their endeavor and 99% could be deposited into the public coffers.
  
  The old ideas of the redistribution of wealth have failed, and it is time to adapt to modern-day preferences. People put their money into entertainment above everything else; isn't it time to tap that wealth? Does anyone think this will reduce the quality of entertainment? It seems to me that when entertainers received less income, the quality was much higher.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Only time I'd ever be OK with a "sin" tax is if taxes were reduced elsewhere.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  I dislike the Justin Bieber's of the world as much as anyone else, but this:
  
  "One of the most disturbing facts about our capitalist nation is the misappropriation of funds directed to the salaries of entertainers."
  
  is silly. These are private sector workers. If someone is dumb enough to pay $200 for a Bieber concert then you can't blame an entertainer, athlete, or any other celebrity from accepting it. Don't like it, don't pay for it.
  
  When you use words like misappropriation, that typically means taxpayer money going to workers in the public sector. In that case, I'm in agreement. We have too many worthless public employees (particularly in the DC area) that simply show up for a paycheck.
• queencitybuckeye

  Of course entertainers offer a product or service. That they make "too much" money is the "fault" of the demand side of the equation.
• sleeper

  

  I don't mind tax increases on cigarettes since I don't smoke and I think people who do smoke are the bottom of the barrel. Tax them into oblivion.
• QuakerOats

  It is time to start taxing welfare benefits, and reduce taxes on productive labor.
  
  And if the cigar smokers paid for the stadium, they ought to be able to light up in any seat in the park.
• gut

  Sin taxes were [theoretically] created to discourage abuse and fund the negative externalities (such the variety of diseases that can result from excessive and prolonged alcohol/tobacco use).
  
  But once gubmit got their hands on these revenues, they realized they had to walk a fine line between taxes getting so high that people quit, or black markets flourished (i.e. lower revenues).
  
  At least with alcohol you CAN argue drunk driving imposes additional societal costs with respect to law enforcement and emergency medical crews, although that's only true to the extent it requires hiring additional personnel
• ts1227

  

  sleeper;1602987 wrote:I don't mind tax increases on cigarettes since I don't smoke and I think people who do smoke are the bottom of the barrel. Tax them into oblivion.

  Yep
• HitsRus

  

  The facilities are publically owned and it is in the best interest of the city/county to maintain the facilities in top conditions. It is no different than a landlord mainntaining the property that a tenant leases. Probably I'd prefer a different way of funding that maintainance rather than a sin tax, but the tax and the mechanism to collect it is already in place and it would just be easier to continue it than to let it expire andthen spend all the man hours finding different funding methods. Make no mistake, you will not see a dollar more in your pocket if the tax is allowed to expire, and you likely will have to pay in some other way. The tax is a few pennies on a pack of cigarettes and a penny a beer. I see where the negative side of this comes from, but really STFU and find something else to complain about (like the Chief Wahoo logo or something else of that importance.)
• joebialek

  joebialek;1602835 wrote:This issue is the absurdity of absurdities. Let me get this straight: the purpose of the Sin Tax is to gouge those who purchase alcohol and cigarettes not because anyone is trying to discourage consumption but rather so the County can use that money to pay for sports stadiums that do not produce anything but a fleeting moment witnessing the passing of a football, the dribbling of a basketball and ...the throwing of a baseball so that such a minute tidbit of diversion can be enjoyed by all. The stupidity of this proposition is enough to make your head spin even though the spin doctors advocating passage of this nonsense are already doing a pretty good job of hypnotizing the voters to actually consider supporting it. At least the Robber Barons of the previous centuries provided something tangible such as oil, steel, railroads etcetera. These team owners do not even provide one tangible thing that could ever be considered with the term “value added.” Almost everyone discusses this “enterprise” as though it is the same thing as industry {which it is not}. The price of admission is essentially a voluntary tax paid by those who can afford it to pay those who don’t need it. If this isn’t a transfer of wealth I don’t know what is.
  
  The real outrage here is the fact that taxes on alcohol and cigarettes will not be used to aid in the reduction of addiction {hence the reference to “sin”} but rather to stuff the pockets of all three teams who could easily afford to pay for the repairs themselves. The vote was rammed through the last time {under somewhat suspicious circumstances} and hear we go again. But this time...not so fast!!! We the voters of Cuyahoga County are going to fight the proponents on this one and we don't care if the teams up and go somewhere else {please see my views on entertainment below} because quite frankly there are simply more important things than sports and the unearned money that comes with it. Those in public office who are too stupid and lazy to find other ways to grow a major American city need to resign and leave their self-seeking political ambitions on the scrapheap of history. Don’t ever let it be said that this was time when the tide ran out on Cuyahoga County but rather was the time when the voters rose up to welcome the rising tide of change and rebuked this pathetic paradigm our previous elected leaders embraced. Let the battle be joined.
  
  And now to the real underlying issue at hand:
  
  One of the most disturbing facts about our capitalist nation is the misappropriation of funds directed to the salaries of entertainers. Everyone should agree that the value an athlete, movie star, talk-show host, team-owner, etcetera brings to the average citizen is very small. Granted, they do offer a minuscule of diversion from our daily trials and tribulations as did the jesters in the king's court during the middle ages. But to allow these entertainers to horde such great amounts of wealth at the expense of more benevolent societal programs is unacceptable. They do not provide a product or a service so why are they rewarded as such?
  
  Our society is also subjected to the "profound wisdom" of these people because it equates wealth with influence. Perhaps a solution to this problem and a alternative to defeated school levies, crumbling infrastructures, as well as all the programs established to help feed, clothe and shelter those who cannot help themselves would be to tax this undeserved wealth. Entertainers could keep 1% of the gross earnings reaped from their endeavor and 99% could be deposited into the public coffers.
  
  The old ideas of the redistribution of wealth have failed, and it is time to adapt to modern-day preferences. People put their money into entertainment above everything else; isn't it time to tap that wealth? Does anyone think this will reduce the quality of entertainment? It seems to me that when entertainers received less income, the quality was much higher.

  
  sell the stadiums
• HitsRus

  

  move to Steubenville
• joebialek

  ernest_t_bass;1602911 wrote:Only time I'd ever be OK with a "sin" tax is if taxes were reduced elsewhere.

  sell the stadiums
• HitsRus

  

  Nah, just continue the penny tax.
• joebialek

  Vote No
• HitsRus

  

  Nah ...voting no just means they'll spend more money figuring out and instituting a new tax to pay for the services you want and need. Just renew the innocuous tax that is already in place.
• Pick6

  

  let's get this straight..the Sin Tax is up for RENEWAL, it is not a new tax or a tax increase.
  
  Honestly, if you can't see the big picture benefit of having it, you are an incomprehensible idiot and I have no desire to waste my time debating with you.
• Con_Alma

  Pick6;1609693 wrote:let's get this straight..the Sin Tax is up for RENEWAL, it is not a new tax or a tax increase.
  
  Honestly, if you can't see the big picture benefit of having it, you are an incomprehensible idiot and I have no desire to waste my time debating with you.

  I agree w ith your sentiments but for one thing. It is a new tax.
  
  Renewals are absolutely new taxes. Initially the people agreed to pay a certain amount of tax for a certain amount of time. Anything above and beyond that is a new level, amount and request.
  
  Local schools love to soften the language of levies by calling the "not new" or not an increase when they definitely are increases in addition to what was previously agreed upon. This sin tax is no different.
• Pick6

  

  Con_Alma;1609695 wrote:I agree w ith your sentiments but for one thing. It is a new tax.
  
  Renewals are absolutely new taxes. Initially the people agreed to pay a certain amount of tax for a certain amount of time. Anything above and beyond that is a new level, amount and request.
  
  Local schools love to soften the language of levies by calling the "not new" or not an increase when they definitely are increases in addition to what was previously agreed upon. This sin tax is no different.

  semantics. Nobody will be taxed any more for cigs and alcohol than what they already are.
• ts1227

  

  joebialek;1608520 wrote:sell the stadiums

  That would require a buyer, and there would never be one, dumbass.
  
  If you drink a case of beer a week, it's like $20/yr, and that's the same as it has been for the past 20 years. That's not asking a lot given that entire section of town would still be a complete shithole and drive property values in that region way more than $20 down
• joebialek

  cool
• joebialek

  sell
• joebialek

  sell them
• HitsRus

  

  You buying?
• Con_Alma

  Pick6;1609717 wrote:semantics. Nobody will be taxed any more for cigs and alcohol than what they already are.

  
  ...but they will be taxed more than previously agreed to. The previous agreement is coming to an end thus the need for a new tax agreement. If it wasn't a new tax they wouldn't be voting on it.
• ts1227

  

  Con_Alma;1612387 wrote:...but they will be taxed more than previously agreed to. The previous agreement is coming to an end thus the need for a new tax agreement. If it wasn't a new tax they wouldn't be voting on it.

  Again, semantics. It is a request for an extension of the existing tax. Yes, it will cost more than if it were allowed to expire, but will not cost any more than it has from 1994-present