A Stitch in Haste

We all knew it was just a matter of time, right?

Faced with a $300 million budget hole, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is hoping people in this already heavily taxed city won't mind forking over a few extra cents for their Big Macs and Whoppers. He wants to ask Detroit voters to approve a 2 percent fast-food tax -- on top of the 6 percent state sales tax on restaurant meals.

The mayor says consumers will barely notice the extra cents at the cash register, but critics say the tax would unfairly burden the poor and hamper economic development.
...
But the Detroit tax would be the country's first to target fast-food outlets, the National Restaurant Association said. The tax would apply to anything sold at a fast-food restaurant, even salads.

There’s a lively discussion (as usual) in the comments section over at Hit & Run, whence this story came, so just jaunt over there and enjoy.

I have only three hasty stitches:

1. Notice that the proposal does not call for earmarking the tax for anti-obesity programs or to specifically fund health-care costs. It's merely to fund general operations. Call me old-fashioned, but I think general taxes should fund general operations and targeted taxes should fund targeted programs (to the extent such operations and programs are legitimate functions of government to begin with).

2. This is yet another example of why those who presume that sales taxes are unconditionally preferable to income taxes are, quite frankly, naive. First you start with a “flat and fair” sales tax, then suddenly the calls from the would-be central planners begin for exempting this and surcharging that, and the next thing you know the Politics of Pull and the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling and the Penny in Your Pocket Rule have twisted it into as ugly a monstrosity as the income tax it was meant to replace. I stick to my guns: keep all taxes low and “simplification” will take care of itself.

3. This is also yet another example of how those who believe in unbridled democracy and the evils of “activist judges” and all the rest of the nonsense are, quite frankly, full of it. Is it really so wrong to put more faith in (unelected) Anthony Kennedy than in this (elected) central planner moron?

Last week I blogged about Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's asinine proposal to levy a 2% tax on all food served in fast-food restaurants, even salads. The proposed tax would not be to fund health care or anti-obesity program, but just to feed the maw of the city's general budget.

Well, now we know why Detroit needs all that new tax revenue.

Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick wrote a check to his cash-strapped city Tuesday for nearly $9,000 in purchases charged to his city-issued credit card, seeking to diffuse criticism for expenses that included visits to a spa and a nightclub.
...
Kilpatrick promised Monday to make the payment in response to questions by the Detroit Free Press, which obtained his credit card statements from the city's auditor general.

The records showed that Kilpatrick charged at least $210,000 for travel, meals, an $85 bottle of champagne and other items over nearly three years.

Kilpatrick has defended the spending as a necessary part of his efforts to promote Detroit and encourage economic development.

Among the charges were a $265 visit to a spa for Kilpatrick and a bodyguard during a 2002 trip to Las Vegas; $836 in hotel charges in New Orleans for his sister; and $946 in charges at Dream, a Washington night club.

As I've said repeatedly in the context of gay rights and the nonsense about (unelected) "activist judges," why exactly are (elected) hack politicians presumed to be better arbiters of what is right and what is wrong?

I'd sooner place my fate in the hands of an unelected activist judge over an elected local hack politician or an elected activist legislature any day.

...then they came to tax the burger eaters...

...then they came to tax the soda drinkers...

...then they came to tax the workaholics:

Tax policy may moderate workaholism, just as cigarette excise taxes can curtail smoking, says a University of Michigan economist.

"High-income, highly educated people are particularly likely to suffer from workaholism with regard to deciding when to retire — going cold turkey on their addictive behavior," said [Professor] Joel Slemrod...

Workaholism, he says, has been linked to a variety of health problems, including exhaustion, stress and high blood pressure, and can take an emotional and mental toll on a worker's family.

Unlike cigarette excise taxes, which are highly regressive ... the appropriate corrective policy for workaholics — who tend to make more money — might involve a more progressive income tax burden ... Slemrod says.

As for me personally, I intend to retire as soon as is economically possible (if for no other reason than to free up my time to feed my other "addiction" — perhaps the next jackass proposal will be a blogging tax).

In any case, I can certainly understand if other people decide to "work until they drop." That doesn't mean that they are "addicted to work" Maybe they're just addicted to a paycheck. Or maybe they don't find the idea of sitting around doing nothing all day appealing.

One way or the other, why should the choice not to retire be summarily dismissed as "workaholism" or an "addiction"? And why should we care one way or the other? If people want to work, contribute to the economy and pay taxes in the process, then so much the better, right? What's the issue?

Oh, right. The issue is yet another excuse to raise taxes and to make them even more progressive than they already are.

Kip's Law: Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner.

(Via Fark — which can also be addictive, so let's tax it. More thoughts from defcon:blog)

And who, you might be wondering, is Ms. Maureen Felix of West Orange, New Jersey?

She holds the prestigious position of "random interviewee on the street" — and now seeks the higher office of your mommy:

The thought of taxing a Big Mac or a Wendy's burger came up at a New Jersey Hospital Association meeting where Gov. Jon S. Corzine was asked if it could be an option to help fund struggling hospitals. At the meeting, he reportedly called it a "constructive suggestion."

A spokesperson for the governor, however, told CBS 2 on Wednesday: "The governor is open to reasonable solutions to help solve our financing problems, but there are no plans for any fast food tax."
...
"I think this country has gone too much in the direction of fast and unhealthy food, and if people are taxed they may terminate that and turn toward more healthy foods," said West Orange resident Maureen Felix.

Of course, why anyone should give any kind of a damn what Ms. Maureen Felix of West Orange, New Jersey, thinks about whether fast food (defined how? by whom?) should be taxed (to what extent? with revenues deployed how?) — or about anything else, for that matter — remains unanswered. As does the precedent question of what basis a free society has in the first place for using taxation to control behavior rather than solely to raise revenue to fund legitimate public goods.

Because to nanny-staters, no such reason is required. Ms. Maureen Felix of West Orange, New Jersey, has an opinion, damn it. The fact that her opinion is baseless, uncorroborated, un-American, anti-freedom — not to mention mind-bogglingly stupid — in no way changes the fact that Ms. Maureen Felix of West Orange, New Jersey, has an opinion, damn it. What right do you have to mock it? And, more importantly, what right does a politician have to ignore it?

She is, after all, Ms. Maureen Felix of West Orange, New Jersey!

Kip's Law: Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner.

Via Fark. More thoughts at QandO.