You may have heard about a bill that Representative Earl Blumenauer (D. Ore.) introduced on July 15. While it’s formal name is the Water Protection and Reinvestment Act, some prefer to call H.R. 3202 the Toilet Paper Tax.
Blumenauer’s website says the bill “establishes a $10 billion annual fund for repairing America’s corroded pipes and overburdened sewer systems, which pose serious health, environmental, and security consequences.” A fact sheet points out that part of this $10 billion will come from a “3% excise tax on items disposed of in wastewater, such as toothpaste, cosmetics, toilet paper and cooking oil.” The bill also creates a 4¢ per container of “glass, cans, plastic & other containers of water based beverages.”
The fact sheet says that “[t]he taxes are designed to be collected at the manufacturer level, so any increased costs to consumers will be minimal.” [emphasis added] It’s actually the manufacturer, producer or importer.
Let me see if I understand this. The companies that make my toilet paper will pay a 3% tax on the wholesale price of the toilet paper they sell. But Representative Blumenauer expects those companies will simply absorb most of that cost rather than increasing the wholesale price? They’re not going to pass their extra costs along to you and me? Or is the Congressman just thinking that a 3% increase in the cost of toilet paper, toothpaste, etc is ‘minimal’?
The “water-based beverage” tax is even more confusing. Blumenauer’s summary says “Water based beverages are drinks that are water or are manufactured with water as a significant input.” Interestingly alcoholic beverages are excluded. I guess that’s because they’re already taxed? Or would the Congressman from Portland prefer that people drink beer instead of soft drinks, vitamin drinks and other drinks made from water?
The bill is in early stages. There’s still time for you to let your own representative know your feelings. Here’s a website that makes it easy.
While you’re at it, ask President Obama how, if Congress passes this bill and he signs it into law, these new taxes do not violate his pledge of ‘no new taxes on those making less than $250,000.’ The last time I checked, people earning less than $250,000 use toilet paper just like the ‘rich’ people he wants to have pay for all his various programs.
What do you think? Share your thoughts by posting a comment.
Related articles from WalterBristow.com:
- Estate Planning and the Five Rights
- Senate Estate Tax Bill Would Exempt $3.5 Million
- Obama Calls for More Estate and Gift Taxes to Pay for Healthcare
- Michael Jackson’s Estate: Nightmare for the Family and Long-Term Income for Attorneys, Accountants and Appraisers
- 8 Tax Tips for Starting a New Business
Loading ...
Walt,
Excellent information, thanks for the article.
Here is the URL for the web site to contact Mr. Obama at the White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Interesting article. I had not heard of this bill, and I doubt that most other folks have not, either. I understand the fairness argument expressed in another comment, and on the surface, I agree with it.
However, looking at the purpose of the act, i.e. to generate funds for water resource cleanup, perhaps it is not far-fetched. Environmental problems often present themselves on a local level but have far-reaching causes and consequences. If we want a cleaner environment, if we want to shephard our natural resources more wisely, if we want to leave a decent planet for our children and grandchildren, then it is incumbent on all of us to help make it so. Obviously, someone living in the northeast is not directly affected by mountaintop removal in Tennessee or West Virginia. Yet, I would argue that all of us have an obligation to help stop that environmental predation. The citizens that are directly affected by those practices may not have the clout by themselves compared to the coal industry to stop such practices. Together, however, we can generate the influence required to stand up against them. So, if we want to provide funding for environmental cleanup, that type of tax is one option. Another is to try to get it out of general tax revenues such as the income tax. Even better is to regulate polluters so that the environmental damage does not happen in the first place. After all, as Ben Franklin said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Pardon my double negative. I meant to say, “I had not heard of this bill, and I doubt that most other folks have, either.”
The answer is to throw out the existing system go to the FairTax (see http://www.fairtax.com).
The link didn’t take me anywhere. It did ask me if I wanted to purchase the “fairtax” domain name.
Entire Tax code should be scrapped. 10% flat tax on everyone’s annual income. No deductions for anything. No Corporate or business taxes! Balanced Budget Amendment. Government cut programs until they can live within their 10% revenue figure. State and local not allowed to take more than 5% combined. [Posted on The Official Brigham Young University Alumni Network on LinkedIn.Com]
The most glaring issue with a flat tax is how difficult it is for the poor to pay X percent of their income vs the relative ease at which the affluent can do without the same percentage.
Given the already substantial “cost” of being poor and ever creeping disparity between the top and bottom wage earners, I won’t ever support a flat tax. [Posted on The Official Brigham Young University Alumni Network on LinkedIn.com]
Poor in America.
3 TV’s, 2 Cars, 3 bedrooms 2 baths, heat and AC, 5000 calorie diet, Movie night out.
The biggest part of the world wishes they could be poor in America. [Posted on The Official Brigham Young University Alumni Network on LinkedIn.com]
Merrill, been to the home of some of our inner city members recently? I doubt their life comes very close to your vision of poverty. Their existence is more like small TV (most likely donated), no car, 2 room apartment for 5 people, heat provided by Kerosene heater when they can afford the fuel, no AC, just enough calories to get them to their second job assuming of course they have one job.
A flat tax would just continue to “grind the faces” of America’s poor. [Posted on The Official Brigham Young University Alumni Network on LinkedIn.com]
Easy solution. 10% max tax rate by constitutional amendment. Then let the politicians duke it out. They could no longer afford deductions for anyone except those who absolutely had to have it. [Posted on The Official Brigham Young University Alumni Network on LinkedIn.com]
The neo-con answer to everything they don’t like is a “Constitutional Amendment”. It seems that their vision is that their point of view is qualified to be cast in stone, no questions asked. Unfortunately, they seldom take the time to look at anything from the perspective of others less forunate. I have prepared taxes for families and individuals at the poverty level and below. Yes, there are those who are there because they don’t have the ambition or smarts to do better for themselves; but many more work two jobs, or have lost their job, or are working and supporting a family as a single parent. They are doing their best despite their circumstances. While our tax system is much too complex, it does make an attempt to place a fair tax burden on wage earners in a complex socio-economic environment. In my opinion, a surtax of 75% on the multi-million dollar bonuses of executives would be a big improvement to the fairness of our tax system.
I think this is among the most significant info for me. And i am glad reading your article. But should remark on few general things, The website style is ideal, the articles is really excellent : D. Good job, cheers