PDA

View Full Version : NJ considers taxing tap water




donnay
07-20-2018, 09:30 AM
NJ considers taxing tap water

NEW JERSEY (FOX5NY) - Never short on ideas for things to tax, lawmakers in New Jersey are considering a tax on tap water.

The proposal is being floated by State Sen. Bob Smith D-Middlesex, who is trying to say it's not actually a tax but a 'user fee'.

"It is a user fee based on volume," Smith told Fox 5's Chasing New Jersey.

It would add 10 cents for every 1,000 gallons of water a home uses. Smith says that will only add $32 a year to the "average" water bill.

Read more: http://www.fox5ny.com/news/nj-considers-taxing-tap-water

Suzanimal
07-20-2018, 09:38 AM
Why do Democrats hate poor people? That's who it hurts.

Brian4Liberty
07-20-2018, 10:59 AM
Everyone benefits from the state’s efforts to keep the air clean. They need a tax on air. Perhaps a higher tax on people who exercise, as they use more air.

specsaregood
07-20-2018, 11:04 AM
If they tax it, I hope they don't use it as an excuse to start fluoridating it.

Currently, New Jersey ranks 49th out of 50 states in its percentage of population that drinks fluoridated public water

Brian4Liberty
07-20-2018, 11:05 AM
Why do Democrats hate poor people? That's who it hurts.

They love all taxes, but especially regressive taxes on the poor. Let them eat cake.

Suzanimal
07-20-2018, 11:07 AM
Everyone benefits from the state’s efforts to keep the air clean. They need a tax on air. Perhaps a higher tax on people who exercise, as they use more air.

They also probably exhale more, too. Better add an extra carbon tax on the air tax.

Suzanimal
07-20-2018, 11:07 AM
They love all taxes, but especially regressive taxes on the poor. Let them eat cake.

Can't even afford cake with the sugar tax.:sorrow:

timosman
07-20-2018, 11:16 AM
Since you were born we controlled what you watch and you read
And pretty soon were gonna, own the fuckin' air that you breathe


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeE3-rOG7i4

Anti Federalist
07-20-2018, 11:41 AM
We laugh about "taxing the air".

Let the green creeps have their way, and that is exactly what will happen.

Zippyjuan
07-20-2018, 12:19 PM
Government should make things like water free for everybody. But who pays to collect and distribute it? Taxpayers.

However, when something is free, people tend to use too much of it. Having people pay their share forces them to decide, based on economics, how much they actually want to use.

specsaregood
07-20-2018, 12:20 PM
Government should make things like water free for everybody.

Says who and why? What possible rational would you have for that?

Suzanimal
07-20-2018, 12:22 PM
Government should make things like water free for everybody. But who pays to collect and distribute it? Taxpayers.

However, when something is free, people tend to use too much of it. Having people pay their share forces them to decide, based on economics, how much they actually want to use.

Have you been drinking?

Zippyjuan
07-20-2018, 12:23 PM
Says who and why? What possible rational would you have for that?

Looks like some people here actually do.

Suzanimal
07-20-2018, 12:23 PM
Looks like some people here actually do.

Like who? I doubt anyone who commented on this thread expects to get free water.

Root
07-20-2018, 12:26 PM
I'm not surprised. NJ will tax the air soon enough.

Zippyjuan
07-20-2018, 12:27 PM
Like who? I doubt anyone who commented on this thread expects to get free water.

Perhaps I misinterpreted the responses to the ideas of raising the price of water?


Why do Democrats hate poor people? That's who it hurts.


We laugh about "taxing the air".

Let the green creeps have their way, and that is exactly what will happen.

These seemed to be against people paying for water/ air. Or was it just opposition to any taxes? How should water be paid for? User fees? (those would exist even if water distribution was privatized- say if Google ran the water systems). General taxation on the general population?

timosman
07-20-2018, 12:31 PM
Perhaps I misinterpreted the responses?

This is what gets you in trouble in life, Zippy. :kiss:

specsaregood
07-20-2018, 12:33 PM
Perhaps I misinterpreted the responses?

These seemed to be against people paying for water/ air. Or was it just opposition to any taxes? How should water be paid for? User fees? (those would exist even if water distribution was privatized- say if Google ran the water systems). General taxation on the general population?

Are you assuming that in the absence of govt nobody would be able to get water or fill a niche delivering water?

Zippyjuan
07-20-2018, 12:36 PM
Are you assuming that in the absence of govt nobody would be able to get water or fill a niche delivering water?

Actually mentioned in the post. If water were privatized and the seller wanted to raise prices would it get the same response as the current distributor wanting to raise their prices?

"Why do they hate poor people?"

Suzanimal
07-20-2018, 12:59 PM
Perhaps I misinterpreted the responses to the ideas of raising the price of water?





These seemed to be against people paying for water/ air.


You quoted me. :rolleyes:


Or was it just opposition to any taxes?

Yes. That's the impression I got from the posts.


How should water be paid for? User fees? (those would exist even if water distribution was privatized- say if Google ran the water systems). General taxation on the general population?

Well, I pay by the gallon for my use. No sales tax. I wouldn't be opposed to Google going into competition with my water provider.

Zippyjuan
07-20-2018, 01:07 PM
You quoted me. :rolleyes:



Yes. That's the impression I got from the posts.



Well, I pay by the gallon for my use. No sales tax. I wouldn't be opposed to Google going into competition with my water provider.

The tax/ user fee New Jersey is proposing is also per gallon use. Use less, pay less.

Water is difficult to have competition in because it requires having large storage systems and costly distribution systems. You can't have five companies with their own reservoirs serving a city so it will likely be run by a monopoly anyways. No more than a couple at any rate. Maybe one storage system but companies pay fees to re-sell it? Then who is responsible for maintaining the distribution system?

Suzanimal
07-20-2018, 01:16 PM
The tax/ user fee New Jersey is proposing is also per gallon use. Use less, pay less.

It's a tax. Even the another Dem in the article acknowledged that much..


"Let's call it for what it is... it's another tax," Councilman Peter Brown D-Linden said.
https://fee.org/articles/a-tax-is-not-a-user-fee/


Water is difficult to have competition in because it requires having large storage systems and costly distribution systems. You can't have five companies with their own reservoirs serving a city so it will likely be run by a monopoly anyways. No more than a couple at any rate. Maybe one storage system but companies pay fees to re-sell it? Then who is responsible for maintaining the distribution system?

So what? Lots of things are hard. o_O

NorthCarolinaLiberty
07-20-2018, 01:23 PM
Water is difficult to have competition in because it requires having large storage systems and costly distribution systems. You can't have five companies with their own reservoirs serving a city so it will likely be run by a monopoly anyways.

No. There is this pervasive idea that large scale operations must be public utilities. History and present day reality contradict that. It's not an either/or proposition.

Excerpts from Mises' The Myth of Natural Monopoly (https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly):




The Natural-Monopoly Myth: Electric Utilities

According to natural-monopoly theory, competition cannot persist in the electric-utility industry. But the theory is contradicted by the fact that competition has in fact persisted for decades in dozens of US cities. Economist Walter J. Primeaux has studied electric utility competition for more than 20 years. In his 1986 book, Direct Utility Competition: The Natural Monopoly Myth, he concludes that in those cities where there is direct competition in the electric utility industries.

***

How "Natural" Were the Early Natural Monopolies?

There is no evidence at all that at the outset of public-utility regulation there existed any such phenomenon as a "natural monopoly." As Harold Demsetz has pointed out:

Six electric light companies were organized in the one year of 1887 in New York City. Forty-five electric light enterprises had the legal right to operate in Chicago in 1907. Prior to 1895, Duluth, Minnesota, was served by five electric lighting companies, and Scranton, Pennsylvania, had four in 1906. … During the latter part of the 19th century, competition was the usual situation in the gas industry in this country. Before 1884, six competing companies were operating in New York City … competition was common and especially persistent in the telephone industry … Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis, among the larger cities, had at least two telephone services in 1905.14

Zippyjuan
07-20-2018, 01:33 PM
No. There is this pervasive idea that large scale operations must be public utilities. History and present day reality contradict that. It's not an either/or proposition.

Excerpts from Mises' The Myth of Natural Monopoly (https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly):

Noting that the examples are from more than 100 years ago when few people had electricity. One company could wire up a neighborhood and another company another neighborhood. They could create their own electricity. Water is harder to "create", store, and distribute.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
07-20-2018, 01:37 PM
Noting that the examples are from more than 100 years ago...

The examples are historical and present day. If you have never heard of electric utility deregulation, then you must be from the past.

You did not even bother to read the article. Neg rep for game playing, fake "supporting member."





Water is harder to "create", store, and distribute.


Yeah, it's too hard, so only government can do it. :radioactive:

Zippyjuan
07-20-2018, 01:42 PM
The examples are historical and present day. If you have never heard of electric utility deregulation, then you must be from the past.

You did not even bother to read the article. Neg rep for game playing, fake "supporting member."







Yeah, it's too hard, so only government can do it. :radioactive:

I don't say "only the government can do it". I do say that it is nearly impossible to have a competitive market because costs of entry are so high. Can you set up your own reservoir and run pipes to everybody in a city?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
07-20-2018, 02:06 PM
I don't say "only the government can do it". I do say that it is nearly impossible to have a competitive market because costs of entry are so high. Can you set up your own reservoir and run pipes to everybody in a city?

Most of France's water supply is privatized.

jllundqu
07-20-2018, 02:12 PM
It's for the children.... unless YOU JUST WANT PEOPLE TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NorthCarolinaLiberty
07-20-2018, 02:14 PM
I do say that it is nearly impossible to have a competitive market because costs of entry are so high.


"Nearly impossible." Yeah, it's probably nearly impossible to split the atom, fly to the moon, or run a sub 4 minute mile.










`

Swordsmyth
07-20-2018, 02:21 PM
Government should make things like water free for everybody. But who pays to collect and distribute it? Taxpayers.

However, when something is free, people tend to use too much of it. Having people pay their share forces them to decide, based on economics, how much they actually want to use.

Does the state supply the water zip?

The local community supplies the water and has a right to charge for it, it could be debated whether the market would do a better job or whether it is best handled as a public utility but the state has no business taxing it.

Brian4Liberty
07-20-2018, 08:31 PM
Actually mentioned in the post. If water were privatized and the seller wanted to raise prices would it get the same response as the current distributor wanting to raise their prices?

"Why do they hate poor people?"

So you are attempting to equate a tax with the cost of a product. Sorry, major fail. The government collecting taxes is outside the marketplace. It is simply robbery by an entity with enforcement authority and guns.

McDonald’s can charge what they can in a competitive market. If the government comes in and says we are taking an additional cut, that has nothing to do with the market, other than potentially distorting the market.

oyarde
07-20-2018, 08:51 PM
I have plenty of water . If I use the water utility I pay sales tax and a price per gallon . If I use well or pond water I do not . I chose to live somewhere where there is plenty and I have choices . Fuck the govt .

Keith and stuff
07-20-2018, 08:54 PM
NJ just increased taxes by billions. I wouldn't put anything past those politicians.

Anti Globalist
07-20-2018, 09:14 PM
Can't say I'm surprised. This is dirty Jersey we're talking about.

pcosmar
07-20-2018, 09:25 PM
?????

Taxpayer funded utilities,, are tax funded.
Paying for water they already paid for. with tax
And are are going to be taxes again,, for using the water.

is it the "new math"?? or is this $hit old.

devil21
07-22-2018, 12:00 PM
At what point do people start recognizing that these are the "carbon taxes" long talked about? Taxes on your very existence, instead of your consumption choices.

timosman
07-22-2018, 12:25 PM
At what point do people start recognizing that these are the "carbon taxes" long talked about? Taxes on your very existence, instead of your consumption choices.

You can always refrain from using tap water and become a hobo.:cool:

devil21
07-22-2018, 12:28 PM
You can always refrain from using tap water and become a hobo.:cool:

I like well water, personally. Run it through a basic filter to remove excess minerals. Also avoids that whole fluoride-makes-you-stupid thing.

Kilrain
07-22-2018, 01:25 PM
[B]It would add 10 cents for every 1,000 gallons of water a home uses. Smith says that will only add $32 a year to the "average" water bill.


What the what? That means the average household blows through 320,000 gallons per year. How is that even possible? We don't skimp on water and we use about 25,000 gallons per year. It's not like New Jersey is an irrigated desert.

Water is a commodity like everything else. You get it delivered to your home and you pay for it. Though it seems weird imposing a tax when you should simply charge rates that cover the maintenance costs to begin with. If it's a public utility supplied by local or state government, that is.

Of course, state-enforced water distribution is its own special kind of evil. Here, they force people to hook up to the municipal grid and make you pay through the nose, as much as $30,000-$40,000 in hook-up fees, even if you have a working private water and sewage system.

Keith and stuff
07-23-2018, 09:03 AM
25k gallons? 4 people showering would use more than that. Cooking and cleaning would use that much. Your family is very good with water.

Kilrain
07-23-2018, 11:04 AM
25k gallons? 4 people showering would use more than that. Cooking and cleaning would use that much. Your family is very good with water.

Only two people, but still. We bathe and shower regularly (often several times a day during summer), run the washing and laundry machines at least once a day, water the garden when needed, etc. Maybe we're on the short end when it comes to water consumption, but I still don't see how the average household could use 320,000 gallons a year. It would mean wasting water in close to epic proportions.

acptulsa
07-24-2018, 07:32 AM
At what point do people start recognizing that these are the "carbon taxes" long talked about? Taxes on your very existence, instead of your consumption choices.

Sort of like mandatory health insurance?

All of this is certainly reeking of the Soviet mantra--the State owns your ass, and you owe the State for feeding you as a child.

juleswin
07-24-2018, 07:39 AM
Whats the difference between taxing water and raising the rates? In my area water(electricity, trash etc) prices go up every so often and no politician is stupid enough to call it a tax. This is just bizarre

devil21
07-24-2018, 12:48 PM
Whats the difference between taxing water and raising the rates? In my area water(electricity, trash etc) prices go up every so often and no politician is stupid enough to call it a tax. This is just bizarre

The difference is where the money goes. A tax is a surcharge used to extract more of your labor, and a separate accounting entry, that can be easily redirected and deposited into a single account somewhere for someone else's use. Raising the price of a commodity (or service) is a monetary function. A tax raises revenue outside of monetary price functions of a commodity.

Kilrain
07-24-2018, 01:05 PM
The difference is where the money goes. A tax is a surcharge used to extract more of your labor, and a separate accounting entry, that can be easily redirected and deposited into a single account somewhere for someone else's use. Raising the price of a commodity (or service) is a monetary function. A tax raises revenue outside of monetary price functions of a commodity.

It depends on whether the water provider is government or private. Here, our water provider is the municipality, though contracted out to a private company. It wouldn't really matter if they simply raised rates (which they do repeatedly) or if they taxed it (more than they already do). It would all end up in the same place.

And not to get stuck on the 320,000 gallons per year, but I ran the math, and if we were to use that much, our water bill would be in excess of $5,000 a year. And I don't really think our water is overpriced. I wouldn't have any complaints if we just had to pay for the water we use. I whine more about how we have to pay more in fixed fees for being hooked up to the water grid than we pay for actual water consumption. Water costs like $15/1,000 gallons, which seems perfectly fair. The fixed rate for having access to water is a larger part of our water bill than what we pay for our actual consumption.

devil21
07-24-2018, 01:17 PM
It depends on whether the water provider is government or private. Here, our water provider is the municipality, though contracted out to a private company. It wouldn't really matter if they simply raised rates (which they do repeatedly) or if they taxed it (more than they already do). It would all end up in the same place.

It might end up in the same place or it might not. Only the accountants within the water supplier know for sure. A tax is a particular word with a particular connotation, however.

I'm on a well so all I pay is the jolt of power to run the well pump and the county's biannual "stormwater run off fee".

Kilrain
07-24-2018, 01:24 PM
It might end up in the same place or it might not. Only the accountants within the water supplier know for sure. A tax is a particular word with a particular connotation, however.

Unfortunately, it's often just semantics. A fee is a charge is a tax. If the money ends up in government coffers, what's the difference?