EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 2, 2010 16:36:34 GMT -5
Following the logic of some who have posted on this thread, are you in favor of a tax on disposable diapers also? That would not be following the logic of this thread at all. Diapers are a problem because they don't biodegrade easily and they take up a ton of landfill space. Plastic bags are a problem because they pollute waterways and are a general litter nuisance. Generally people don't throw diapers in rivers, they go to the place they are supposed to - landfills, unlike grocery plastic bags. Unlike consumer plastic bag behavior - where you have an easy substitute (ubiquitous reusable bags), diaper consumers probably would respond inelasticly to a tax and it would only serve as a revenue generator rather than as a behavior-changer. OK, grant there is a different logic for disposable diapers. However there is also an easy substitute for disposable diapers, cloth diapers. The percent of space in landfills devoted to diapers is enormous and they must be picked up and transported to the landfills thereby putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. With this being the case, would any of you espouse putting a tax on disposable diapers? Seems like there is at least as much a reason (but different) to do so as putting a tax on plastic bags. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 2, 2010 16:40:06 GMT -5
Hoyawatcher, generations before you managed to handle cloth diapers so what you say comes across as merely inconvenient to you.
|
|
H2Oya 05
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Let's go Hoyas!
Posts: 298
|
Post by H2Oya 05 on Feb 2, 2010 16:42:24 GMT -5
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 2, 2010 16:49:54 GMT -5
Watcher - even with a massive two cart grocery trip, reuseable bags are so much more convenient. They don't rip, you can fit more in, etc. Try 'em if you haven't.
On the ceramic cup thing, since most of my mugs would have a 10+ year lifespan...I don't see it as all that close.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Feb 2, 2010 17:01:06 GMT -5
Hoyawatcher, generations before you managed to handle cloth diapers so what you say comes across as merely inconvenient to you. First - I daresay I am one of less than 5% of parents with kids who even try to do cloth diapers. Especially back when I did it. That alone ought to tell you something. Second - if you had been in the house with 2 kids oozing toxic waste onto sheets and other linens and clothes because the diapers didn't hold it in you wouldn't call it just "inconvenient". Third - if you really want to get environmental on me - the amount of water and phosphates we used back then made up for any impact on the landfill. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Feb 2, 2010 17:20:34 GMT -5
Watcher - even with a massive two cart grocery trip, reuseable bags are so much more convenient. They don't rip, you can fit more in, etc. Try 'em if you haven't. On the ceramic cup thing, since most of my mugs would have a 10+ year lifespan...I don't see it as all that close. I have 2 reusable Kroger bags plus my favorite cloth 6 pack bag for wine bottles ;D Love to fill that one up. But they don't seem to play along when I ask for 10 of them to pack up the weekly hunting and gathering expedition. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Feb 2, 2010 17:41:08 GMT -5
Again, that's a carbon-centric criticism rather than one against plastic bags polluting waterways and littering - which is what the tax is trying to prevent. The answer to that question about how many uses do you need to make an impact is 1 - because no one throws reusable bags into a river (well, maybe in Syracuse). And as a diaper-consumer, there's no reasonable amount of tax you could put on disposable diapers to make me change to cloth diapers. You'd be better off pouring funds into research for coming up with some easily biodegradable/compostable disposable diaper that's just as absorbent as Huggies.. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 2, 2010 18:18:41 GMT -5
Watcher - even with a massive two cart grocery trip, reuseable bags are so much more convenient. They don't rip, you can fit more in, etc. Try 'em if you haven't. On the ceramic cup thing, since most of my mugs would have a 10+ year lifespan...I don't see it as all that close. I have 2 reusable Kroger bags plus my favorite cloth 6 pack bag for wine bottles ;D Love to fill that one up. But they don't seem to play along when I ask for 10 of them to pack up the weekly hunting and gathering expedition. Those wine bags are awesome. I have 8-10 I've accumulated from purchase, company giveaways, etc., and so I have a reserve. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 2, 2010 19:47:25 GMT -5
Hoyawatcher, generations before you managed to handle cloth diapers so what you say comes across as merely inconvenient to you. First - I daresay I am one of less than 5% of parents with kids who even try to do cloth diapers. Especially back when I did it. That alone ought to tell you something. Second - if you had been in the house with 2 kids oozing toxic waste onto sheets and other linens and clothes because the diapers didn't hold it in you wouldn't call it just "inconvenient". I have been in the house with FOUR kids oozing toxic waste onto sheets and other linens and clothes because the diapers didn't hold it in. My wife and I, just like generations and millions before and alongside us, managed, even though it was inconvenient. Let me be honest. Today I would not consider cloth diapers since disposables are so much more convenient, though costly. My point is that plastic bags in stores are also a convenience and I see no more need to impose that fee inconvenience than in the cloth/disposable diaper situation. Both are merely big brother deciding what best for us (always with his/her opinion of a larger good) and using his/her thought process for the purpose of advancing an agenda and to collect a fee. On the subject of collecting a fee, if plastic bags are so bad for the environment, outlaw them. But, oh no, the state wants the money from a fee. |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 2, 2010 22:32:08 GMT -5
First - I daresay I am one of less than 5% of parents with kids who even try to do cloth diapers. Especially back when I did it. That alone ought to tell you something. Second - if you had been in the house with 2 kids oozing toxic waste onto sheets and other linens and clothes because the diapers didn't hold it in you wouldn't call it just "inconvenient". I have been in the house with FOUR kids oozing toxic waste onto sheets and other linens and clothes because the diapers didn't hold it in. My wife and I, just like generations and millions before and alongside us, managed, even though it was inconvenient. Let me be honest. Today I would not consider cloth diapers since disposables are so much more convenient, though costly. My point is that plastic bags in stores are also a convenience and I see no more need to impose that fee inconvenience than in the cloth/disposable diaper situation. Both are merely big brother deciding what best for us (always with his/her opinion of a larger good) and using his/her thought process for the purpose of advancing an agenda and to collect a fee. On the subject of collecting a fee, if plastic bags are so bad for the environment, outlaw them. But, oh no, the state wants the money from a fee. But this is ridiculous. If the government had simply banned plastic bags, that would be a more heavy-handed government intervention! Nor would that have achieved the reduction in plastic waste they wanted (stores would have switched to paper rather than push reusable bags). Furthermore, plastic bags are not in any way free, unless you think the Plastic Bag Fairy materializes them out of thin air. As noted above, there are a lot of externalities associated with them, among them dirtying the river. Throwing a small tax on them encourages behavior shift with minimal intrusion. In fact, this is pretty much a sterling example of a market-based mechanism. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Feb 3, 2010 10:16:47 GMT -5
Both are merely big brother deciding what best for us (always with his/her opinion of a larger good) and using his/her thought process for the purpose of advancing an agenda and to collect a fee. How big is "big brother" in this situation, really? Can citizens of a municipality no longer collectively ask "What can we do as a community to solve problem X?" The bag tax is a reasonable solution designed to combat a clearly identifiable problem. And I don't think there's an "opinion" of a larger good here. It's a FACT that plastic bag waste costs the city a lot of money. Expensive cleanup of such waste requires a funding source. You can either pay the bag tax or pay higher sales/property/etc. tax. The bag tax is not based in an ideological argument. It's designed to be an economic/tax solution. |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 3, 2010 14:32:23 GMT -5
Both are merely big brother deciding what best for us (always with his/her opinion of a larger good) and using his/her thought process for the purpose of advancing an agenda and to collect a fee. How big is "big brother" in this situation, really? Can citizens of a municipality no longer collectively ask "What can we do as a community to solve problem X?" The bag tax is a reasonable solution designed to combat a clearly identifiable problem. And I don't think there's an "opinion" of a larger good here. It's a FACT that plastic bag waste costs the city a lot of money. Expensive cleanup of such waste requires a funding source. You can either pay the bag tax or pay higher sales/property/etc. tax. The bag tax is not based in an ideological argument. It's designed to be an economic/tax solution. Bingo. And a good idea, at that. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 3, 2010 14:56:40 GMT -5
Both are merely big brother deciding what best for us (always with his/her opinion of a larger good) and using his/her thought process for the purpose of advancing an agenda and to collect a fee. How big is "big brother" in this situation, really? Can citizens of a municipality no longer collectively ask "What can we do as a community to solve problem X?" The bag tax is a reasonable solution designed to combat a clearly identifiable problem. And I don't think there's an "opinion" of a larger good here. It's a FACT that plastic bag waste costs the city a lot of money. Expensive cleanup of such waste requires a funding source. You can either pay the bag tax or pay higher sales/property/etc. tax. The bag tax is not based in an ideological argument. It's designed to be an economic/tax solution. This is a fundamental difference of opinion between those who identify themselves as fiscal conservatives and those who don't (no offense here, but can't think of a good name). You bring up "what can we do to solve a collective problem" and references to the "larger good". The problem fiscal conservatives have with these approaches is that they can easily be overextended as proponents of this approach decide that maybe they want to eliminate the pollution and crowding cars in an area by jacking up parking fees - is that acceptable? London's done that. Is it acceptable to believe that a community isn't developing economically as fast as it should, and work to take over private property by government fiat? It happened in Kelo v. New London. Is it acceptable to believe that a solution to a collective problem of inflation is to nationalize businesses that raise prices? Venzuela's doing that right now. Is it acceptable to allege that, to combat the problem of "civic disorder", you need to execute people who protest? Iran has a group that's agitating for that. All of these have the same rationale for their existence - a public good. Yet I really hope that you're not advocating all of these positions, too. There's an argument to be made that plastic bags damage the Anacostia so much that there's a collective need to stop pollution, and that a minor tax in plastic bags will reduce pollution enough that we don't have bigger problems later on. But that's a nuanced argument that's a heck of a lot better than the weak sauce "collective good" one. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 3, 2010 14:57:10 GMT -5
Several points. First, Bando, you and your Plastic Bag Tooth Fairy are already paying for those plastic bags in the price the store places on their merchandise. Second, Austin, "citizens of a community" in actuality was the City Council of D.C., the "big brother" of D.C. government. Third, relative to bags in the streams and rivers and clogging up the storm drains, etc., I'll bet 98% of citizens who use plastic bags to cart groceries or other merchandise do not throw their bags out into the streets or streams, so what's happening is we're inconveniencing the 98% because of a problem with the 2%. Fourth, if I'm checking out of the supermarket where my merchandise adds up to $125, do you think adding on the $0.60 for the price of 12 bags is going to make me think twice about using plastic bags?
This is just another case of a government entity finding a rationalization for imposing a fee. Sounds good as you environmentalists are showing but it's really just another tax.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Feb 3, 2010 15:28:42 GMT -5
Fourth, if I'm checking out of the supermarket where my merchandise adds up to $125, do you think adding on the $0.60 for the price of 12 bags is going to make me think twice about using plastic bags? Didn't Bando already say that plastic bag use is down 50%? So yes, behavior has already demonstrated considerable elasticity. Uh, the title of this thread is "DC Bag Tax". I think we all understood this is a tax. Excuse me now while I go and tell everyone in the USF/Georgetown Pregame that it's just another basketball game. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Feb 3, 2010 18:08:49 GMT -5
This is a fundamental difference of opinion between those who identify themselves as fiscal conservatives and those who don't (no offense here, but can't think of a good name). You bring up "what can we do to solve a collective problem" and references to the "larger good". The problem fiscal conservatives have with these approaches is that they can easily be overextended as proponents of this approach decide that maybe they want to eliminate the pollution and crowding cars in an area by jacking up parking fees - is that acceptable? London's done that. Is it acceptable to believe that a community isn't developing economically as fast as it should, and work to take over private property by government fiat? It happened in Kelo v. New London. Is it acceptable to believe that a solution to a collective problem of inflation is to nationalize businesses that raise prices? Venzuela's doing that right now. Is it acceptable to allege that, to combat the problem of "civic disorder", you need to execute people who protest? Iran has a group that's agitating for that. All of these have the same rationale for their existence - a public good. Yet I really hope that you're not advocating all of these positions, too. Edited, since previous post was overly snarky after a long day at the office. We have a gasoline tax for the purpose of building roads for the common good. We have property, sales and income tax to build and maintain schools for the common good. Surely you're not advocating getting rid of schools or roads because they pertain to the common good? My point was in response to ed's "big brother" comment. This isn't a fascist national government shoving rules down the throats of the citizenry and executing anyone who disagrees. This is an example of a representative, democratically elected government attempting to allocate costs fairly. My point is that this is precisely why we have representative government -- to solve common problems shared among the people. So, everything government does is "for the common good." Whether government's actions are sometimes good or sometimes bad has no bearing on the proper role of representative government. Generally, in my opinion, people shouldn't be limited in the types of regulations they can make through their government, except by the Constitution. This is what Kelo, which you mention, stands for. Local governments should be allowed to make laws, good or bad, in an attempt to solve local problems (provided they don't run afoul of the Constitution). It's ironic to me that so-called libertarians would have decided Kelo differently, limiting the regulations local governments are allowed to make, therefore reducing the options for regulation available to representative governments. So, I'm not ignoring the "nuanced argument." You're missing the point of my retort to ed, which doesn't concern the bag tax per se but whether this ordinance is a government overreach. It's not. I also fail to see a link between "fiscal conservatism" and a dislike of regulations which have a practical purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 3, 2010 22:57:41 GMT -5
since when can city govt ever = big brother? isn't that entirely missing the point?
unless you're an anarchist i guess. hey ed, how's that retirement plan / social security treating you? yeah, that's what i thought.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 4, 2010 11:52:09 GMT -5
Any time a government entity, whether local, state or national, passes a law or issues an executive order that imposes a requirement on its citizens it becomes big brother in that it decides it knows best in the particular issue. What I have just said in the preceding sentence does not say whether or not it's law/order is warranted.
As for the DC bag thing, I don't live in DC (thank God) but, if I did, I would be incensed. The DC council has no business taxing me if I choose to use plastic bags. They are using the environmental charade for the sole (almost) purpose of adding new revenue to the DC coffers.
As for Bando's pronouncement that plastic bags had been reduced 50%, well, that's not exactly a scientific poll.
I choose to ignore C2C's and TC's snark.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Feb 4, 2010 12:34:49 GMT -5
Any time a government entity, whether local, state or national, passes a law or issues an executive order that imposes a requirement on its citizens it becomes big brother in that it decides it knows best in the particular issue. So when a government prohibits murder, it's unilaterally deciding it knows best? People aren't involved at all? If the state of Virginia were, hypothetically speaking, allowed to prohibit abortion, would that be a "big brother" action? |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 4, 2010 12:51:31 GMT -5
Any time a government entity, whether local, state or national, passes a law or issues an executive order that imposes a requirement on its citizens it becomes big brother in that it decides it knows best in the particular issue. So when a government prohibits murder, it's unilaterally deciding it knows best? People aren't involved at all? If the state of Virginia were, hypothetically speaking, allowed to prohibit abortion, would that be a "big brother" action? Big Brother = government decides to do something I don't want. There's a line we all want drawn on government intervention, somewhere between anarchy and whatever the other end would be called. And since we're in a democracy, that line ain't gonna be exactly where you or I want it to be. I think it is especially crazy when it involves things like the water supply or public health. |
|
