A meals tax?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All for the meals tax. Let the apartment-living ESL and FARM families contribute something toward the cost to educate their kids when they go to McDonalds.

Do you understand economics? Taxes are paid on apartments and rental units, but by the landlord. The landlord passes those costs onto the renter. So the apartment living ELS and PARM people are indirectly paying realestate taxes

Not the pp, but you obviously don't understand economics. Landlords charge what the market will bear, which is a function of supply and demand. They don't merely pass on all their costs.

I teach economics, you clearly would have a problem in my class.

Yes, they charge what the market will bear. But. When it's an across the board cost that affects all suppliers equally, there is no competitive advantage to apply downward pressure. So in this case the market reacts to cost increases by reducing the quantity available until there is equilibrium. Prices will go up, though some of the cost may be absorbed in other manners like increasing the density of tenants in rental housing.

The renters will pay, it's a very regressive tax.

So, basically, you're admitting that property taxes aren't necessarily passed on to tenants. Thanks for providing an example that proves my point. One can construct various economic scenarios where property taxes aren't passed on directly to tenants. Your original statment that costs are passed onto tenants is overly simplistic - glad I got my economics degree from highly respected university and didn't have to sit through a class taught by you.

I think you should send it back.

Increased costs lead to increases in price which in turn leads to a decrease in quantity demanded for a given market.

Of course, the renters don't pay the tax "directly", it's an indirect cost to them. Rents go up and they pay the rent..

There is no way to argue a meals tax is not regressive.

[Anonymous]

There's no way to argue with that pp (or op?) period. Their skull is so thick and they have a comeback for anything you say, not that any of it makes sense. I hate to say it, but pp or op just isn't very smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. And it doesn't need lead to smaller tips or less income for the servers either, like some people are trying to claim (probably rich snobs who can't even fathom living off a servers salary.) Working in Arlington was NO DIFFERENT tip wise from Fairfax

Ha! You keep making assumptions and getting mad and calling names when people don't agree with you, ok? Very mature, very intelligent, lol.

Listen, actual sit down restaurants where servers earn tips are probably the least likely to be negatively affected by this tax. It's more likely to affect businesses like carry out restaurants (think Chipotle, Subway, Noodles & Co etc) where middle class and poor people (the ones who can't actually afford to be taxed anymore) eat and work. And I can totally fathom living off of a server's salary, I did it for years when I was young. Also, my single mother was a server through my entire childhood. We never had any money.

No, the frequent ecoli outbreaks and the lack of sick leave leading to people coming in with norovirus are more likely to hurt the fast food chains.

But I'm sure you're right. Subway in Arlington has been really suffering.

Oh, you're very clever, aren't you? What does sickness have to do with taxes? Nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. And it doesn't need lead to smaller tips or less income for the servers either, like some people are trying to claim (probably rich snobs who can't even fathom living off a servers salary.) Working in Arlington was NO DIFFERENT tip wise from Fairfax

Ha! You keep making assumptions and getting mad and calling names when people don't agree with you, ok? Very mature, very intelligent, lol.

Listen, actual sit down restaurants where servers earn tips are probably the least likely to be negatively affected by this tax. It's more likely to affect businesses like carry out restaurants (think Chipotle, Subway, Noodles & Co etc) where middle class and poor people (the ones who can't actually afford to be taxed anymore) eat and work. And I can totally fathom living off of a server's salary, I did it for years when I was young. Also, my single mother was a server through my entire childhood. We never had any money.

That sucks! I make great money as a server and save plenty. Guess it depends on the restaurant.

Well it did suck. My mom worked all the time, so I never saw her because she was never home. And the reason there was never any money is because I had two older brothers, so she was a single mother of three kids. We also didn't live in this area, I only moved here as an adult. I grew up 300 miles away in a different state.

[Anonymous]

Short-term, this might hurt poor people a little more than rich people. But long-term, great public schools are the ONLY way to break a cycle of poverty. I'm voting yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All for the meals tax. Let the apartment-living ESL and FARM families contribute something toward the cost to educate their kids when they go to McDonalds.

Do you understand economics? Taxes are paid on apartments and rental units, but by the landlord. The landlord passes those costs onto the renter. So the apartment living ELS and PARM people are indirectly paying realestate taxes

Not the pp, but you obviously don't understand economics. Landlords charge what the market will bear, which is a function of supply and demand. They don't merely pass on all their costs.

I teach economics, you clearly would have a problem in my class.

Yes, they charge what the market will bear. But. When it's an across the board cost that affects all suppliers equally, there is no competitive advantage to apply downward pressure. So in this case the market reacts to cost increases by reducing the quantity available until there is equilibrium. Prices will go up, though some of the cost may be absorbed in other manners like increasing the density of tenants in rental housing.

The renters will pay, it's a very regressive tax.

So, basically, you're admitting that property taxes aren't necessarily passed on to tenants. Thanks for providing an example that proves my point. One can construct various economic scenarios where property taxes aren't passed on directly to tenants. Your original statment that costs are passed onto tenants is overly simplistic - glad I got my economics degree from highly respected university and didn't have to sit through a class taught by you.

I think you should send it back.

Increased costs lead to increases in price which in turn leads to a decrease in quantity demanded for a given market.

Of course, the renters don't pay the tax "directly", it's an indirect cost to them. Rents go up and they pay the rent..

There is no way to argue a meals tax is not regressive.

Never said the meals tax isn't regressive - it most certainly is. All I'm saying is that increased costs are not ALWAYS passed on to the consumer, and that the market consists of more variables than cost alone. Can increased costs have an effect on the price a consumer pays? Absolutely, but markets are more complicated than that and other variables can, and often do, come into play. Real world economics is not as simple as you make it out to be.

[Anonymous]

Where has Arlington said their meals tax hurts the poor people more than the rich?

[Anonymous]

Fairfax County's 2014 report on the meals tax says according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, higher-income households tend to spend a larger share of their food budget on eating out.

[Anonymous]

Fairfax County's 2014 report on the meals tax says according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, higher-income households tend to spend a larger share of their food budget on eating out.

Of course they do. They have a larger spendable budget. But, we are talking proportion. It will hurt some people who will cut back on eating out--but the far greater risk is to the businesses who may close as a result. And, to the waiters whose tips will be less. They are the ones who will be most hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Fairfax County's 2014 report on the meals tax says according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, higher-income households tend to spend a larger share of their food budget on eating out.

Of course they do. They have a larger spendable budget. But, we are talking proportion. It will hurt some people who will cut back on eating out--but the far greater risk is to the businesses who may close as a result. And, to the waiters whose tips will be less. They are the ones who will be most hurt.

Richmond actually saw an increase in people dining out when they instituted their meals tax.

[Anonymous]

In theory, a meals tax would pernanently reduce the real estate tax rate by three or four cents. It's a self imposed tax that is optional, unlike property tax. It stays in the jurisdiction in which it is collected. And it is one of the few, perhaps the only, taxes that the General Assembly authorizes the county to levy. Also, a meals tax has the visitors from outside the county contributing. We would also be getting diversified taxation bringing the real estate tax rate more in line with neighboring counties.

[Anonymous]

Let's tax everything. In Maryland they tax you for flushing the toilet. They even tax homeowners when it rains. How about a sneeze tax? A fart tax would be great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's tax everything. In Maryland they tax you for flushing the toilet. They even tax homeowners when it rains. How about a sneeze tax? A fart tax would be great.

Why should personal property be the main source of revenue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In theory, a meals tax would pernanently reduce the real estate tax rate by three or four cents. It's a self imposed tax that is optional, unlike property tax. It stays in the jurisdiction in which it is collected. And it is one of the few, perhaps the only, taxes that the General Assembly authorizes the county to levy. Also, a meals tax has the visitors from outside the county contributing. We would also be getting diversified taxation bringing the real estate tax rate more in line with neighboring counties.

But that's not the proposal. This is an additional tax. They'll just spend every penny of it and claim they need more. We've seen this movie before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In theory, a meals tax would pernanently reduce the real estate tax rate by three or four cents. It's a self imposed tax that is optional, unlike property tax. It stays in the jurisdiction in which it is collected. And it is one of the few, perhaps the only, taxes that the General Assembly authorizes the county to levy. Also, a meals tax has the visitors from outside the county contributing. We would also be getting diversified taxation bringing the real estate tax rate more in line with neighboring counties.

But that's not the proposal. This is an additional tax. They'll just spend every penny of it and claim they need more. We've seen this movie before.

You don't know that. It could very well be the proposal. They do talk about diversifying taxes, so the real estate tax rate should go down next year if they mean what they say.