Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

t1_je31hr9 wrote

In 1936, Johnstown, Pa had a flood (not to be confused with the larger, more devastating 1889 Johnstown flood) that killed dozens and did about $43 million of property damage.
Pennsylvania started a tax to cover the damages. At the time it was 10% of all liquor sales.

As of 2019, the Johnstown Flood tax was still in effect - only it had grown to 18%. I don't know if it's in place today. I'm sure some Pennsylvanian knows.

178

t1_je39vnw wrote

In Canada they enacted a sales tax for the first time during WWII as a temporary measure to help pay for the war effort. Guess what? We still got the fucking sales tax.

165

t1_je3gcyr wrote

We have toll road in my state that was supposed to stop when the original build was paid for. The bill was paid off in 1993. Still got tolls...

52

t1_je57rqj wrote

This is extremely common and yet when old school conservatives warn about this type of thing everyone tells them they're off their rockers. I don't agree with a lot of what conservatives say, but this clearly is one slippery slope that gets greased regularly.

14

t1_je57clw wrote

Texas? If not, then we got the same problems. They built toll roads that are the only direct connections between a few minor cities. Supposed to stop once paid for, got paid off 15 years ago. But I still pay $6 to drive 9 miles with traffic.

12

t1_je3k4ra wrote

Pretty sure it was income tax (even more $$) and it was for ww1

11

t1_je5rnhn wrote

In Quebec our taxes are supposed to go towards fixing our roads.

it doesn't fucking show

2

t1_je636kj wrote

Most countries do. VAT, salestax, moms.

It's the same thing and started as temporary.

1

t1_je66lxe wrote

It's a VAT. No one uses straight sales tax other than the USA because they're stupid. No, they aren't the same thing.

1

t1_je7muus wrote

It is still there.

And a couple years ago, multiple towns in the area had to be evacuated.

Due to the risk of dams breaking

2

t1_je4ot7q wrote

Could legislators get votes by promising to repeal such an outdated tax policy, or does the tax money outweigh even that incentive?

1

t1_je4ydl2 wrote

Probably economic health of the state is more important, as it should be. People shouldn't go around getting rid of taxes, they're what allows the country to function.

−10

t1_je563eh wrote

While I agree that we shouldn't just go on a tax cutting spree to avoid economic harm, I think taxes that had a pre-defined conditional expiration as part of the original wording when passed should honor that condition.

10

t1_je6nd19 wrote

Why? They followed proper legislative processes, and voters haven't made it an issue.

1

t1_je6rbcv wrote

Because those were the terms agreed to when it was passed, and voters were not given an opportunity to comment on changes to those terms. If this was a business contract, such a violation would render it void.

2

t1_je6521u wrote

It is, but it’s just our general liquor tax now. Funds aren’t specifically ear marked for anything.

1

t1_je2xtr4 wrote

Nowadays they'd just give themselves a raise and take a vacation

148

t1_je32us0 wrote

Or just flee to Mexico for a week

53

t1_je3kpy1 wrote

"everybody seems to be dying in a blizzard... off to Cancun!"

17

t1_je46i46 wrote

Nah, it’s Texans who do that. But they would have fancy dinners at French Laundry.

2

t1_je65rm9 wrote

Not all of us.

And yes, Fled Cruz is a complete and total piece of shit.

4

t1_je3yezz wrote

Well at least they aren't destroying major cities by letting them flood. I'll take that trade.

−3

t1_je5ffnh wrote

They're destroying them many different ways bud you can't honestly be blind to that

4

t1_je4p28g wrote

People are not supposed to work for free, and you are conflating legislators and public career employees.

−4

t1_je528my wrote

> Nowadays they'd just give themselves a raise and take a vacation

Or they would continue to work and accept a salary because they, like the rest of us, need it to live?

−5

t1_je5f945 wrote

Wtf are you talking about don't humanize our garbage government and pretend they even remotely care about us lol

4

t1_je358zd wrote

This would never happen today.

31

t1_je4br5v wrote

All CA state workers experienced a furlough of about 10% during Covid. We never saw that money back even after the large surplus.

21

t1_je4eght wrote

How could they reimburse you for time you didn't work?

−12

t1_je4eu14 wrote

[deleted]

24

t1_je4ri1f wrote

I'd add on that calling what they did to you, it's kind of bullshit to call it a "furlough" because you worked the whole time. That's just a paycut. I've had legit furloughs in work when there wasn't enough production work to pay the bills so we didn't work for 2 weeks, didn't get paid for two weeks (most of us picked up a temp job during that time).

For the federal government, it's complex. If you're "essential" you work, and eventually get paid, when the shutdown is over. If you're not marked essential, you don't work, and you (as a result of the 2018-2019 shitshow) do get back pay too as well.

6

t1_je4z04v wrote

This is correct, however I would add that more and more members of Congress are making waves about not retroactively paying the feds Congress has forced to not work during shutdowns Congress has created.

Many (most?) feds are salaried. Politically-motivated government shutdowns further erode the viability of a stable and educated federal workforce - something, I suspect, some in Congress actually want.

3

t1_je7f7vd wrote

We got an extra two paid days off per month for it though. I'm sure it was hard on lots of people, but it totally counts as a furlough.

0

t1_je4t3cd wrote

Whatever. Lots of people took pay cuts during covid because sales were way off. I took a pay cut and then later lost that job. How many state workers lost their jobs?

−14

t1_je4x5qe wrote

Hey everybody. Look at this guy. He lost his job. Therefore everybody else should have to take pay cuts and or lose their jobs as well. And they definitely can't complain about the pay cuts. Because he has it worse off. Everybody knows this is a huge competition. If he doesn't get paid nobody can be paid.

We all have to fight each other to the death. Or something like that. Just don't look up at the robber barons. They don't want you to see what's going on at the table. Make sure the masses are fighting down on the floor.

9

t1_je56nph wrote

A higher level of suffering for one person does not invalidate the suffering of another person.

8

t1_je38ugy wrote

It happens frequently when the legislative branch fails to pay the budget. Any elected offical or appointee of the governor won’t have their checks issued by the State Controller’s Office until the budget is passed.

20

t1_je4suhs wrote

Then they get all the back pay. Not sure what you're trying to say. It's not like actually lost any wages.

5

t1_je55hu7 wrote

Unless you have cash in the bank or say Golden 1 Credit Union decides to issue interest free loans, those people still have debts to pay. It’s not like they can say “sorry, can’t pay my mortgage or groceries this month, but it’s all good.” There were plenty of budget cycles where there were months without a budget passed and these folks weren’t initially paid.

1

t1_je5fjbu wrote

i read about this awhile back in "The West without Water" and one of the most interesting parts of this whole thing to me is this...

"Why so many people were caught off-guard by these floods remains puzzling. It appears that the Native American populations, who had lived in the region for thousands of years, had deeper insights into the weather and hydrology, and they recognized the patterns that result in devastating floods."

its sad to me the knowledge that has been lost about this land since we took over it. the floods sound very similar to the ones that happened this winter.

7

t1_je7nb29 wrote

Cali has always been described as a hellscape inferno, with earthquakes, floods, mudslides and every other disaster you can think of.

But people are idiots.

No one should be allowed to live there, except a small ish population of farmers.

2

t1_je2zw8p wrote

All of them or just those in the Meterology Office?

3

t1_je3w8bh wrote

Well you won't see that again..

2

t1_je4p71k wrote

Good. Why do you think employees should work for free?

8

t1_je6afa3 wrote

If an in effort to keep society afloat everyone should for a time if necessary like it was here....but hey if you think they made the wrong decision 👍...

−1

t1_je57j6s wrote

Wasn't one of the LA city council members refusing calls from the president of the United States to step down after he was involved in a racism scandal?

2

t1_je5xxr7 wrote

Anyone who describes themselves as a legislator I assume is an incredible douche

2

t1_je78tkb wrote

As a government employee… fuck that. I still have bills to pay that won’t give me a year and a half break.

1

t1_jebyatn wrote

They must have been really ripping people off to have enough saved up to make it that long without pay

1

t1_je3pxjm wrote

That should be the norm for any sort of government job.

−11

t1_je4pa2d wrote

So, all government employees should work for free according to you.

Wow.

5

t1_je4x1mz wrote

At any time, they can quit and get real jobs.

−10

t1_je5j7en wrote

^ This guy wants only rich people in positions of governmental power.

1

t1_je4ifak wrote

Im sure the businesses they shop at will appreciate the drop off in business.

3