Interesting. Thanks for the overview, and especially for the explanatory comments under "Amendment 51 - State Sales Tax for Services for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities". 'Cause in my first reading of that I gave that first "for" a value equivalent to "on" and I wondered just who the hell thinks charging sales tax on services provided to individuals with developmental disabilities is a good idea.
Laudable and needed as services for the developmentally disabled are, levying sales tax to fund them seems just plain bizarre to me. Next up, a sales tax to provide cancer treatments, a sales tax for services for the blind, for the elderly, etc. etc. etc. Yes, income and other taxes are the way to go, not earmarks from sales tax proceeds.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-11 08:21 am (UTC)Laudable and needed as services for the developmentally disabled are, levying sales tax to fund them seems just plain bizarre to me. Next up, a sales tax to provide cancer treatments, a sales tax for services for the blind, for the elderly, etc. etc. etc. Yes, income and other taxes are the way to go, not earmarks from sales tax proceeds.