Birdseed tax, soda tax, Boring Day & other odd bills

by In the news Friday, February 15. 2013

Weird & misc. tax bills of the 2013 Legislature
By Taxpayer Association of Oregon

HB 2905 - Birdseed Tax

HB 2687 - Mandates car headlights on at all times

HB 2352 - Celebrates Dull & Boring Day. (Sister City program)

HB 2331 – Tax on soda pop

HB 2427 - Bans canola oil farms

SB 113 - Civil penalty to use a plastic bag in a grocery store

Make an online donation today to the Taxpayer Association of Oregon. Your help is greatly needed.

Posted by In the news at 06:25 | Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments | Email This Post | Print This Post

Back to Home Page

Bob Clark

The Soda tax is kind of twisted. The federal government subsidizes in one fashion or another domestic corn production, which should lower the price of corn syrup used in most soda. But then it also has the ethanol mandate for gasoline blending which might offset much of the government subsidy to corn farming with respect to the price of corn syrup. Then too, the federal government tariffs imported sugar, raising the cost of sugar for sodas not using corn syrup. Then too, isn’t a soda tax just more of a continued march towards a stealth like Oregon sales tax regime. I do have a dog in the fight, as my only real vice in this world is soda and chocolate. Maybe I could skirt the soda tax by buying these mixer packages and making my own soda.
One fun thing coming out of a public body recently is the creation of a new hazelnut by OSU. It is smaller than our other type hazelnuts. I used to work my dad’s hazelnut orchard ( 8 acres) in tualitin. Boy, I can see maybe getting a four acre spread of hazelnuts of this new variety; and the great thing about these new nuts is they supposedly make for great chocolate confectionaries. Like the blind monkey finding the banana, government sometimes stumbles onto something great. (only like with the internet, it takes somebody like the selfish greedy entrepreneur to tell the blind monkey how it actually has found something of great value. If the government still made computers, they would be the size of the empire state building no doubt).
- DavidAppell
  
  Shall we count the red herrings in this comment?
  
  You’ll notice the government *doesn’t* make computers, and except for a few of the original ones never did. It was also wise enough to let private industry loose on the Internet instead of trying to develop it all itself. This were both wise and good decisions — as was the original development of the Internet, the telephone network, the Intercontinental railroad, space flight, etc, etc etc, all of which went on to become amazing technologies that greatly advanced the wealth of the country and the world — but in Bob Clark’s mind even that isn’t good enough, because, you know, it’s theoretically conceivable they *might* have done differently, so let’s blame them for that possibility instead.
  
  Some people just like to whine, and if they have nothing real to whine about, they’ll make something up.
  - Appellsauce
    
    “Some people just like to whine, and if they have nothing real to whine about, they’ll make something up.”
    
    Looked in a mirror lately?
  - JacklordGod
    
    >This were both wise and good decisions
    
    Say what? Good God, I hope you aren’t trying to say the government developed the internet. It didn’t.
    
    The internet was developed by two things:
    
    One – Computer networking. This was developed largely by private industry. Even ARPAnet was created by private contract.
    
    Two – The biggie. Getting government out of regulating the monopoly known as Bell.
    
    Under that monopoly, Bell controlled the entire phone network. Due to this, it only allowed its own equipment to be connected to the phone lines.
    
    Computer networking was already well along but if you wanted to connect a personal computer you had to use an audio coupler.
    
    It was the elimination of this device which brought the internet as we know it. Without the removal of the government granted monopoly that constrained data transmission speeds by mandating the audio coupler we would still be taking hours to transmit a picture.
    
    Nice try sonny, but you can’t fool those of us who were involved with the technology at the time.
    - DavidAppell
      
      The development of ARPANET was funded by the US government (DoD), not by private companies.
      
      AT&T’s monopoly served its purpose: the creation, maintenance and expansion of a world-class telephony network that provided service to everyone.
      
      With the profits it created more technologies without which nothing today would exist, especially the transistor and CCD, and including the first communications satellite, the laser, UNIX, C, DSL, and more. (They also discovered the Big Bang along the way.)
      
      When the time was right, the monopoly was taken eliminated and these nascent technologies flourished. Now notice what else has happened to the US communications infrastructure: US consumers have completely mediocre networks into their homes compared to many other countries.
guest

Cheap, cheap -, the Dem Legishooters dance to the loon of the Kitzarena. Lo, hear what Cylvia plays in the background to her Prince Valentino that accompanies hirsuet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?=2FTNbaK4KaM cheap cheap
- guest
  
  Missed the thread? Cussed gremlins like Dems! Google “Dance the tune of the Ocarina (duet) and to hear the blue cool aid elevator music for what’s left attending Oregonestrations.
  - 3H
    
    Except two of the bills were sponsored by Republicans (2687 and 2352). Now don’t you feel just a little bit foolish for assuming? No, I expect not. You don’t strike me as an introspective kind of guy….
    
    As for missing the thread, that’s not all you’re missing.
    - guest
      
      Surveying the structure of 3H’s mind it would be easier to count the bricks left than the bricks missing.
mike

Listen up you fools. The headlights on thing is a great idea. Think of the fuel it will waste.
These people are smart.
- DavidAppell
  
  So, how much fuel *would* it consume? (“Waste” is a value judgement — yours, not mine.)
  - mike
    
    Most all experts agree one to two miles per gallon penalty.
    - DavidAppell
      
      Hmm. The U.S. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that daytime running lights reduce fuel efficiency by only a “fraction of a mile per gallon.”
      http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.aspx
    - DavidAppell
      
      I don’t buy a 1-2 mpg penalty for daytime running lights, because:
      
      Headlights consume a couple of hundred watts at most:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp#Environmental_impact
      
      The energy content of gasoline is 132 megajoules per gallon, so if a gallon lasts 1/2 hour that’s 70,000 watts. Surely a lot of that is lost to friction and inefficiency, but even if 90% is lost the lights are consuming only ~200/7000 percent of the fuel, or roughly 3%. So gas mileage of 25 mpg would be reduced by about 0.5 mpg.
Jim Labbe

A little context on the bird seed tax would help. Let me offer my opinion.

The Bird Seed tax would fund non-game wildlife conservation (via the Oregon Wildlife Conservation Strategy). Hunting and fishing liscences are declining and there is no dedicated funding source to conserve fish and wildlife that are not fished or hunted for sport. It makes sense that those who enjoy these non-game species (like most species of birds), pay a small amount to support the conservation of these species.

I buy bird seed. I support a small tax on bird seed to conserve non-game wildlife.