NJ considers taxing tap water

[donnay]

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-consid...xing-tap-water

[Suzanimal]

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

[Brian4Liberty]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Can't even afford cake with the sugar tax.

[timosman]

Since you were born we controlled what you watch and you read
And pretty soon were gonna, own the $#@!in' air that you breathe

[Anti Federalist]

We laugh about "taxing the air".

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

[Zippyjuan]

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]

Government should make things like water free for everybody.

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

[Suzanimal]

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]

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

Looks like some people here actually do.

[Suzanimal]

Looks like some people here actually do.

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

[Root]

I'm not surprised. NJ will tax the air soon enough.

[Zippyjuan]

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]

Perhaps I misinterpreted the responses?

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

[specsaregood]

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]

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]

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.

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]

You quoted me.



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]

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]

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:

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]

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:

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]

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.

[Zippyjuan]

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.

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]

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]

It's for the children.... unless YOU JUST WANT PEOPLE TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

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]

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.