Skip to main content

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes.

In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes.

It doesn't stop there.

In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes.

But guess what!

It doesn't stop there.

No, no, no, no. 

In California, there's always another tax.



After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda.

The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes everywhere!

But wait, there's more! 

Despite the multitudes of layers of fees, penalties and taxes for breathing and existing on this part of the planet, the friendly Bay Area progressives, who publicly denounce every whiff and possible hint of discrimination, have incredibly wiggled their way into yet another inexplicable fee at the local public park, which the resident has already ostensibly financed through the myriad of previously-mentioned taxes: this time, the holier-than-thou progressives have discriminated against our furry friends, requiring a $2 payment for admittance of each pet. 

Now, this may seem sort of reasonable to the untrained visitor, as this fee hardly breaks the bank and hopefully goes toward a positive cause.

After all, who's going to pay for waste pickup after our little pups relieve themselves alongside the park trails?

Well, hold your horses. Things aren't always as they appear to be.

The park employee describes the $2 fee as one which covers the cost of "plastic pet waste bags," which cost roughly $14 per every one thousand bags; this averages out to less than two cents per bag!

How can anyone possibly justify the 14,200-percent price difference?

So here we are, left with yet another feature of the socialist utopia or dystopia, depending on perspective  this time a $2-per-dog fee at the local public park for “plastic pet waste bags” that we don’t use, which are miraculously not covered by the aforementioned taxes and somehow cost 142 times the market price of a plastic pet waste bag. 

Ironically, the bureaucrats and talking heads excuse the soda tax on the basis of purported health benefits, then they tax you again when you’re out exercising. 

When you ask what exactly you’re paying for, if not for 1-cent bags that you’re not using because you’ve brought your own, they tell you they’re working on minimum wage and just following orders, that we can reach out to the administration if we wish to submit questions. 

When you reach out to the administration, however, no one’s got any answers; they’re all just following orders. 

Well, that's government in a nutshell: our resources going to waste, prices make no sense, no one’s got an explanation, and everyone’s just following orders.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would