Senate Global Climate Change

The tax increase is probably best discussed in the tax thread. As for your other comment - yes, you are right! But, I happily took the handout for said star wars figures. Im sure you'd have done the same? Yes?

 

Not only did you not bring it up there (and still haven't), you felt it was intrinsically relevant to a discussion of a measure designed to reduce usage of plastic bags with a financial disincentive. So if it's so relevant that you accused other people of deceitful behavior for not talking about it here, then you should have no problem discussing it here because you believe it's relevant.
Unless, of course, you are trying to avoid talking about it now.

The point wasn't it was unethical behavior, the point was that it highlights not understanding what capitalism is if you think that was capitalism.

 

Well, Ill just say that a 45% tax increase over ten years(article quote) is not a good thing. Not much else to say or discuss. Did you think the tax increase is good? Again, get rid of plastic bags like we did. I havent seen any here strewn across the highways or in parking lots for a while now. Working as intended.

I know how capitalism works. Just a light hearted example of a reward based system versus a punishment based system. No need to over-analyze. Not everything has to be so serious!

@anakinfansince1983 - Then get the sticks out. Hopefully, it all works out.

 

What tax increase? You claimed it exists and that it's gone up 45% in the last ten years, but you didn't provide any source for the data or analysis of that. That leaves a whole lot to 'say or discuss' including if it's even true or just made up to complain about the policy, and that you object to the very concept of providing anything that would demonstrate that claim is actually true seems like you care less about it's veracity and more that you find it ideologically convenient to pretend it's true.

The question of "is this tax increase good" only comes after establishing the tax increase exists, and you refuse to do that, it's just unsubstantiated claims that you threw out, criticised everyone else for not talking about it, then entirely refuse to talk about yourself.

California still has plastic bags, and I don't see them strewn across highways or in parking lots. They cost 5 or 10 cents, but the big takeaway with that is it's sufficient that a large number of people do not get them now. So you don't appear to have an established causation here, let alone a correlation.

The 'joke' only works if you have established competence. It has to be clear beforehand one knows what one is talking about for a joke about it not being that works. In your case, it just plays into a much broader pattern of you not understanding concepts but still using the words as though you do. You have to have credibility before such a thing could ever be viewed as a joke.
Saying every time you're disagreed with or corrected was a 'joke' would imply that just about every post of yours is a joke, in which case it would suggest you're not posting in good faith.

It's also not terribly relevant since you're advocating for a punishment-based system in calling for a ban, because that's saying "do this or else you will face a punishment" (in this case, it appears to be a fine of a few hundred dollars for distributing a plastic bag). There's no 'reward system' in what you're advocating for, so you can't claim this is all a 'joke' about reward-based systems being good when you said it while simultaneously advocating for a punishment-based system re: plastic bags. So that inconsistently doesn't suggest you understand this conceptually, and you've never done anything to counter that perception.

 

@Lowbacca_1977 - The overall tax increase came from the article that RunjediRun posted a few pages ago. Have a peek: https://wjla.com/news/local/fairfax-county-approves-5-cents-tax-on-plastic-bags. First paragraph from the lone dissenting vote commented on the 45% tax increase over 10 years(plus other things) that residents have endured. Guess its not made up after all.

Why tax bags though when they are bad for the environment when you can just get rid of them altogether? Comes back to: Is the goal or objective to get rid of plastic bags and the waste they can generate OR to try and squeeze a few more bucks out of citizens that are already weary of said buck-squeezing? What if everyone just said: "screw it, we'll just pay the 5 cents"? Is this about the environment or not?

And forget the "pays for A's nd B's" thing. My goodness, no need to blow that out into the dingweeds. Like one time IIRC my Dad had said he "pays for A's" or something. Probably didnt work since I coasted with mostly D's anyways.

 

If you ban the bag you have to then enforce it, which is a cost also. Tax is not just about squeeze money, it is about trying to influence and change behavioural habit over a long period. There will always be people who say "I will pay the 5 cent" but conversely, there are always those who, when offered incentive would say "Oh I am not bother about the 5 cent tax incentive, just give me the bag". The idea is to try and change behaviour so people get tired of paying the extra tax and decide not to use the bag any more. It can and does work.

 

It's amazing that you hem and haw about the word of "experts", yet when a conservative politician makes an unsupported statement you take it as concrete fact.
But thanks for showing everyone your contempt for education yet again.

 

Here's an article specifically about New York's ban, arguing that taxes are more effective at changing behaviours.
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2020/january/PlasticBagStory.html

---
Not sure how I feel on the issue, personally. We've had a ban on single-use plastic shopping bags in NZ since July 2019 and it seems to be working pretty well. Everyone uses reusable supermarket bags made of fabric. Though there is still a lot of plastic used in the packaging of individual items.

But if taxes work better for other places, I don't see why they shouldn't be used.

 

Based on what assessment, or on what data? There's no explanation or qualifier on that, no explanation of methodology, and no definition what they mean by a 45% tax increase that is alleged to exist.

It certainly appears made-up as I can't find any evidence of its existence, and you can't find any evidence of its existence. So neither of us have any data or analysis showing such an increase exists.

So yes, it seems made-up. If it wasn't, then when I asked you, from the start, to provide the data or analysis indicating that tax increase happened, you would've done it. You haven't, which makes the claim appear to be specious at best.

The goal or objective is to reduce their use. Which is what the 5 cent tax does. It still means that someone that forgets their own bags because it's an emergency or can't go without one or what not is able to still get a bag, but there's a sufficient penalty attached to it that it can dissuade most people most of the time. It makes zero logical sense to argue that this is just about getting money from people when nothing is saying that they have to get the bags, and those people would have the same options available as if the bags were banned, they just have the additional alternative to buy a plastic bag. No one is being "squeezed" the only people that would be paying it are people that have decided it's better than the options you would give them.

Further, arguing that banning them is different doesn't make sense, because the same question can be asked of a ban like New York's of "What if everyone just said 'we'll just pay the fine?". The only way you could make a rule that couldn't be circumvented by sufficient will for the penalties would be if everyone that used a plastic bag was imprisoned or killed. Anything short of that, if they want to, they will avoid it.

 

@Lowbacca_1977 - so the Town Supervisor "made it all up"? All right then.

As for bags. Our local stores still offer bags for those "emergencies" but they are paper and do cost 5 cents, all of which goes to local charity. Plastic bag use is down here for sure. That was the goal.

@paradigmes - yes, it does cost something to enforce it but all major chains and even most single-owned stores here do NOT have plastic bags at all. Either paper or bring your own. A few wholesale shops offer free boxes(boxes that products shipped in, stuff like that) to take your stuff out in. The only place Ive been recently that does use them is our local liquor store but any purchase with two or more bottles gets you a box. And the liquor store ones are different than the typical grocery store ones. The goal here is reduce plastic bag usage and it appears to work from my own experience.

 

If he didn't make it up, where is the data or analysis that demonstrates it was a real claim?

If this is important, why do you keep trying to sweep this topic under the rug?

So they're squeezing people for money and justifying it as for charity and you're okay with that?


You also didn't address that your call for a ban is fundamentally punishment driven rather than reward driven, even though you said that approaches shouldn't be punishment driven.

 

speaking of baby steps and bans of plastic bags

the state wide ban of plastic bags went into effect here in Maine back in July, several towns and cities before that had already put similar bans in place, obviously Maine is a small state but still pretty neat

https://www.mainepublic.org/environ...tyrene-bans-finally-taking-effect-on-thursday

 

Why would he lie? And Im choosing to believe him since he's you know, the Town Supervisor. Maybe for best results you need to seek out the data to prove him wrong? Im choosing to believe him. So, we're good here with this. There is nothing to sweep. The Town Supervisor's word is good enough for me.

Squeezing people? Are you going with that? Wow - so taxing them is OK but if it(voluntary purchase, BTW) goes to charity then thats a squeeze? Damn - what a bass-ackwards way to think. The bag purchase is voluntary, making that clear again. No, a ban of an item or product is not a punishment, its a ban. No one gets fined, no one gets sent to bed without dinner. Some states simply worked to get rid of bags. But, some other states looked to SQUEEZE more taxes out of their already burdened citizens. Looks like Maine got it right from the post above. Excellent.

 

You constantly rant how scientists are untrustworthy because they might have an 'agenda', but a politician is totally believable.

That appears to be this source here - which is a clearly conservative news source, and even it says "The new county budget will raise taxes by 3.4%, amounting to a 45% rise over 10 years. " It's not the past, but the future, and using shady math to generate a false number.
So - no, you're wrong. And yes, the burden of proof is on you if you cite a statistic - no 'coasting with Ds' here, sorry.

 

To get what he wants.

I sought out data and found nothing that backed him up. I know you consider this your personal religion, but no, we're not "good here with this" because something is consistent with what you want to be true.

For that matter, you brought it up as "but shouldn't this matter to the discussion?" yet 9 of the county board of supervisors decided that it *wasn't* relevant. So, if your logic is "just believe the board of supervisors", then 9 of the 10 supervisors passing the tax should mean that you believe them because they're county supervisors and there's more of them.

No, I'm not "going with that" I'm very clearly mocking your inconsistency here. You're arguing that the charity isn't "squeezing" anyone because it's a voluntary purchase, but that's true about the 5 cent tax on plastic bags we're discussing as well. Those are both voluntary purchases. The bag purchase is voluntary in Fairfax county, too, but that didn't matter because acknowledging that would violate your preconceived dogma.

There's zero intellectual honesty in you claiming that it counts as "squeezing" consumers if it's a 5 cent tax on a voluntary purchase, but that if it's 5 cents that go to charity on a voluntary purchase then that's not 'squeezing'. It's functionally the exact same action of taking 5 cents from consumers to get a bag, and if your complaint is that citizens are overburdened, then it doesn't matter where that money is going.

You're simply lying now. The penalty for violating the ban is, specifically, a fine. If there was no punishment, there would be no way to make a ban be a ban.

 

@Lowbacca_1977 - OK, great. Thanks. I’m all set.

 

I actually agree with Mike about just removing plastic bags instead of taxing. We've tried to switch away from plastic bags here and it's just never taken. So instead of taxing people and taking their money without achieving the goal, just remove plastic bags and make people pay for reusable fabric bags. Don't give people options we don't want them to take and then punish them for it.

 

I wasn't trying to start an argument. I was just sharing a post that my county is doing something. And interestingly enough two other counties also just passed this same tax. Of course it's better to just get rid of the bags. You know what would have been better than that? Never inventing plastic bags in the first place. Look there's always something better. Sorry I was happy.

 

No worries, I'm not really sorry. I should expect things to get taken out of context and be picked apart. Don't worry I promise not to lose any sleep tonight just because we can't all agree on how to fix the world.

 

It's all good, nothing to be sorry about.

 

I never get tired of paying the tax. I always forget my reusable bags.

Of course I also only ask for paper and recycle it. Plastic should indeed just be banned.

 

People also seem to not remember where plastic comes from in the first place.

 

Weird how the one out of ten supervisors who voted against gets the most coverage in that short article. Not really an accurate representation of the debate.

Cool that the county's taking steps, though.