Oregon grocery bags

[Duckman]

1 hour ago, paxmiles said:

As for costs, the main thing here is that bags used to come with the product, now we buy them seperately. That's a cost increase, or rather a decrease in product/service purchased. Even if you were in the boat that declined their bags and brought your own, it's still a service that the store is no longer offering and you aren't getting anything to replace it. That's a loss for you, the consumer.

Dunno, it's like if they charged you a rental fee for use of a bottle opener when you bought a beer. Even if it was only a nickel, it's a charge for something that used to be free.

The concept of a sin tax has existed for decades.  It's not about skimping on a service or even charging you more money.  It's viewed as a way to discourage certain behaviors by making them costly.  See taxes on cigarettes and alcohol as an example.  If they were trying to make money they would make the price higher and they would charge for other things (like checking and bagging, here in PA we have a franchise with 1-2 checkers and 8 self-check aisles).

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Duckman said:

If they were trying to make money they would make the price higher and they would charge for other things (like checking and bagging, here in PA we have a franchise with 1-2 checkers and 8 self-check aisles).

Well, regarding self-checkout, I know the local winco employees say that self-checkout has considerably more theft than regular checkout. They also don't run self-checkout at night (not entirely sure why, I suspect they are only practical during the busy periods).

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Duckman said:

The concept of a sin tax has existed for decades.  It's not about skimping on a service or even charging you more money.  It's viewed as a way to discourage certain behaviors by making them costly.  See taxes on cigarettes and alcohol as an example.

Not a fan of sin tax. For one, it makes the government run on sin, which seems inherently flawed, as it gives the government financial motive to keep people sinning. The other issue is that in a democracy, sins are things the "majority" doesn't approve of, so special taxes for group without voting power is basically discrimination against minorities (not racial, minorities in general), so it's a strong bullying the weak sort of thing.

But now I'm getting into politics. Sorry.

[Duckman]

34 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

Not a fan of sin tax. For one, it makes the government run on sin, which seems inherently flawed, as it gives the government financial motive to keep people sinning. The other issue is that in a democracy, sins are things the "majority" doesn't approve of, so special taxes for group without voting power is basically discrimination against minorities (not racial, minorities in general), so it's a strong bullying the weak sort of thing.

Pax, the term Sin Tax applies to the category whether or not you think the issue being taxed is a sin or not.  Ask people today and they will tell you that drinking in moderation and smoking are not sins.  As for the majority, the majority has been discriminating against others since the first use of *fire*.  In this particular case, people have decided (correctly or not) that using disposable plastic bags is bad for the environment and so they are discouraging it.  The west coast is notorious for environmental law like this.  Try living in rural King county where you cannot cut trees on your own property because a million people in the metro area have a guilt complex about the environment and don't know a damned thing about environmental stewardship.

[InfestedKerrigan]

I don't believe in "sin," Pax. It is an imaginary guilt complex developed for social control.  Big Industry is doing what it can to pass this sort of thing off on consumers, instead of their bottom line.  California's drought, for example.

[InfestedKerrigan]

Update: Fred Meyer South in Medford does, I repeat, does have plastic bags.

[Guest]

On 6/4/2019 at 3:41 AM, paxmiles said:

So looks like I've got this one wrong. It's only Hillsboro that changed, not Oregon. I misunderstood. 

@InfestedKerrigan

Yeah, whole thread was a misunderstanding on my part. 

[Guest]

On 6/4/2019 at 10:30 AM, InfestedKerrigan said:

I don't believe in "sin," Pax. It is an imaginary guilt complex developed for social control.  Big Industry is doing what it can to pass this sort of thing off on consumers, instead of their bottom line.  California's drought, for example.

Talking about sin tax's use of sin, not biblical/universal sin. Sorry if my use of the word "sin" is confusing.

Sin tax is not about actual sin. But, in context to a discussion about sin tax, it would make sense to refer to things taxed under sin tax as sins, even though they aren't really sins.

Most actual sins are real crimes, now, or at least they were crimes in the rather recent past. So there isn't really any sin tax that covers actual sins. Sin tax is more a tax on cultural taboos, or rather, the habbits of minorities, than it is a tax on sin.

As to my part, I don't really think it's ethical for the majority to finance their democratic spending via the income of minorities. Taxing the people without a voice is the very same unethical position that lead to the founding of our country, "Taxation without representation."

[InfestedKerrigan]

2 hours ago, paxmiles said:

As to my part, I don't really think it's ethical for the majority to finance their democratic spending via the income of minorities.

That is why we live in a republic, and not a democracy.

 

Quote

Taxing the people without a voice is the very same unethical position that lead to the founding of our country, "Taxation without representation."

Ehh, it was taxation of merchants and land owners, while purportedly not receiving the rights due all Englishmen; which tells you that it was rich men complaining about other rich men, a trend that had become quite a common theme by the 16-1800s.

It wasn't until things like the Haymarket Massacre, or other violent actions taken or endorsed by government against workers that you see "equal rights" start happening domestically.  Don't forget, the constitution and related documents were set up to maintain the Republic, not democracy.

 

 

/RoCtoc

[Guest]

17 hours ago, InfestedKerrigan said:

That is why we live in a republic, and not a democracy.

 

Ehh, it was taxation of merchants and land owners, while purportedly not receiving the rights due all Englishmen; which tells you that it was rich men complaining about other rich men, a trend that had become quite a common theme by the 16-1800s.

It wasn't until things like the Haymarket Massacre, or other violent actions taken or endorsed by government against workers that you see "equal rights" start happening domestically.  Don't forget, the constitution and related documents were set up to maintain the Republic, not democracy.

 

 

/RoCtoc

It's a democratic republic. Elements of both. We're sometimes a democracy and sometimes a republic. 

Anyway, you are right, this is a RoC topic at this point. Thanks for the conversation.

[InfestedKerrigan]

"The Senate voted 17-12 to prohibit grocery stores and restaurants from providing plastic checkout bags. Stores will still able to offer recyclable plastic and paper bags for a minimum 5-cent fee.  The bill will go to the governor after the House approves some technical changes."

https://www.ktvz.com/news/oregon-lawmakers-ban-single-use-plastic-bags/1085349430

 

 

[Guest]

Oh joy......

[Dark Trainer]

Stupid politicians can't solve real problems. Balance your budget then see if we give a crap about their ability to fix things.