Health Club tax proposal : New York state
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() The bike tax thread got me thinking this is worth a thread.
To help with a state budget shortfall, Patterson is proposing a Tax on Health Club memberships. I'm not an economist, but doesn't that seem like money not well spent. Why would we have policies to discourage people from healthy lifestyles? Is the logic that if you are not going to join a gym b/c of a small tax - you probably wouldn't join anyway? I wonder what the offset would be in health care costs if they got people to actually exercise. I would go so far to propose that this might be akin to Fiscal recovery - would you actually reduce health care costs if you gave a tax break for gym memberships, i.e. encourage people to lose weight and therefore they spend less money on health care costs? Versus, take money from the people who ACTUALLY belong to a gym to pay for, among other things, health care for people who DON'T?
Is my logic wrong on this one? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() WOW have to love taxes on stuff that make the general public better. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Absolutely ridiculous. What is Patterson thinking? |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() condorman - 2009-03-09 10:03 PM Is my logic wrong on this one? ....don't think so. seems pretty dumb to me. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() I don't think there should be a tax incentive for gym memberships, you're either going to do it or not; unless the government pays for you to go (substantially) it will have no effect. But I definitely think it is down right foolish to tax an activity that is beneficial both to the individual and society (health care). |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Sounds good to me our only hope is higher taxes, besides if ya can afford the gym membership you are rich anyway, it's about time you pay your fair share. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I think it would end up like those coupons for the digital converter boxes. Health club memberships cost, let's say, $50/mo now. Then the gov't comes in and subsidizes $20/mo and all of a sudden a gym membership is now $70/mo. How about the government just worry about maintaining the roads, upholding the laws, and defending the country. Or wasn't that enough for them to do? |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2009-03-09 9:35 PM Absolutely ridiculous. What is Patterson thinking? That if he raises enough taxes he doesn't have to cut back on out of control spending. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() It'd be easier to note the items Patteron hasn't proposed to tax. Fromm CNN.com: "New Yorkers would face tax hikes on beer, wine, non-diet soft drinks, and digital services like iTunes downloads. Cab fares would rise 4 percent while the cost of cable and satellite TV services, tickets for sporting events and movies would also jump by the same percentage." Add health clubs to the list. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I don't see a problem with consumption taxes as long as there is an equal or greater offset to income taxes. Actually, I prefer a "fair tax" structure to the current system where tax winners and losers are picked and controled by the government. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I'm with you. Unfortunately, the consumption tax gets usually gets passed then the offset never does. Jackemy - 2009-03-10 7:04 AM I don't see a problem with consumption taxes as long as there is an equal or greater offset to income taxes. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() CBarnes - 2009-03-09 11:10 PM Sounds good to me our only hope is higher taxes, besides if ya can afford the gym membership you are rich anyway, it's about time you pay your fair share. Please tell me you forgot the red sarc font.... You're either rich, or you prioritize your resources to pay for the things that you deem important, such as access to a facility to help you stay as healthy as possible. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() leapdog - 2009-03-10 7:25 AM I'm with you. Unfortunately, the consumption tax gets usually gets passed then the offset never does. Jackemy - 2009-03-10 7:04 AM I don't see a problem with consumption taxes as long as there is an equal or greater offset to income taxes. Yeah you are right. Legislators get this book produced by states that gives them the expected revenue loss on all the things not taxed. So when they want to fund some program, they pull out the book and pick things to tax that give them enough revenue to fund the program and the fewest people will complain. It has very little to do with being fair or creating positive outcomes through taxation. Edited by Jackemy 2009-03-10 7:39 AM |
![]() ![]() |
![]() CBarnes - 2009-03-09 11:10 PM Sounds good to me our only hope is higher taxes, besides if ya can afford the gym membership you are rich anyway, it's about time you pay your fair share. Wait, WHAT? You're kidding right? I mean, I'm a Dem and all, but that's ridiculous. How does having a gym membership equate to being rich? A lot of my friends belong to gyms and we are FAR from rich. FAR from it. We just choose to spend the little money we have in an effort to take care of ourselves, which has nothing to do with being rich. |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() wurkit_gurl - 2009-03-10 7:45 AM CBarnes - 2009-03-09 11:10 PM Sounds good to me our only hope is higher taxes, besides if ya can afford the gym membership you are rich anyway, it's about time you pay your fair share. Wait, WHAT? You're kidding right? I mean, I'm a Dem and all, but that's ridiculous. How does having a gym membership equate to being rich? A lot of my friends belong to gyms and we are FAR from rich. FAR from it. We just choose to spend the little money we have in an effort to take care of ourselves, which has nothing to do with being rich. It's posts like this why the sarc font was created. Some people just take things too literally. Really? You think that he thinks "our only hope is higher taxes"? Why would you assume the rest is literally meant too? Try settling down for a minute. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Bripod - 2009-03-10 9:20 AM wurkit_gurl - 2009-03-10 7:45 AM It's posts like this why the sarc font was created. Some people just take things too literally. Really? You think that he thinks "our only hope is higher taxes"? Why would you assume the rest is literally meant too? Try settling down for a minute.CBarnes - 2009-03-09 11:10 PM Sounds good to me our only hope is higher taxes, besides if ya can afford the gym membership you are rich anyway, it's about time you pay your fair share. Wait, WHAT? You're kidding right? I mean, I'm a Dem and all, but that's ridiculous. How does having a gym membership equate to being rich? A lot of my friends belong to gyms and we are FAR from rich. FAR from it. We just choose to spend the little money we have in an effort to take care of ourselves, which has nothing to do with being rich.
Perhaps I have turned over a new leaf! why not tax gym memberships? Seems like it is not a needed expense, seems to be a luxury item. so tax it. After all there are people who would like to go to the gym but they can not afford it and that is just not fair. We need to ensure that ALL PEOPLE can take advantage of the health benefits of physical activity and since the BIG GYM INDUSTRY will not provide a product at a price that all can afford we need to provide a means of allocating this resource to the disadvantaged. So I say TAX THEM. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() condorman - 2009-03-09 10:03 PM Is my logic wrong on this one? See, there's your first mistake; using logic and reason to come up with public policy.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() CBarnes - 2009-03-10 10:38 AM We need to ensure that ALL PEOPLE can take advantage of the health benefits of physical activity and since the BIG GYM INDUSTRY will not provide a product at a price that all can afford we need to provide a means of allocating this resource to the disadvantaged. So I say TAX THEM. Um, here in DC, we have everything from community centers that charge only a few $ per visit, to $10 a month gyms, to $30 a month gyms, to the usualy $50-$75ish, to $100+ gyms. It's pretty safe to say that there is a pretty wide range of availability...not to mention free parks and stuff where people can go and get exercise. Getting health benefits of physical activity could be as simple as taking a walk every day - it's not as if the evil "Big Gym" industry is denying that right to people who can't afford a membership. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() wurkit_gurl - 2009-03-10 1:15 PM CBarnes - 2009-03-10 10:38 AM We need to ensure that ALL PEOPLE can take advantage of the health benefits of physical activity and since the BIG GYM INDUSTRY will not provide a product at a price that all can afford we need to provide a means of allocating this resource to the disadvantaged. So I say TAX THEM. Um, here in DC, we have everything from community centers that charge only a few $ per visit, to $10 a month gyms, to $30 a month gyms, to the usualy $50-$75ish, to $100+ gyms. It's pretty safe to say that there is a pretty wide range of availability...not to mention free parks and stuff where people can go and get exercise. Getting health benefits of physical activity could be as simple as taking a walk every day - it's not as if the evil "Big Gym" industry is denying that right to people who can't afford a membership. I think I know who forgot the sarc font ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() CBarnes - 2009-03-10 9:38 AM Bripod - 2009-03-10 9:20 AM wurkit_gurl - 2009-03-10 7:45 AM It's posts like this why the sarc font was created. Some people just take things too literally. Really? You think that he thinks "our only hope is higher taxes"? Why would you assume the rest is literally meant too? Try settling down for a minute.CBarnes - 2009-03-09 11:10 PM Sounds good to me our only hope is higher taxes, besides if ya can afford the gym membership you are rich anyway, it's about time you pay your fair share. Wait, WHAT? You're kidding right? I mean, I'm a Dem and all, but that's ridiculous. How does having a gym membership equate to being rich? A lot of my friends belong to gyms and we are FAR from rich. FAR from it. We just choose to spend the little money we have in an effort to take care of ourselves, which has nothing to do with being rich.
Perhaps I have turned over a new leaf! why not tax gym memberships? Seems like it is not a needed expense, seems to be a luxury item. so tax it. After all there are people who would like to go to the gym but they can not afford it and that is just not fair. We need to ensure that ALL PEOPLE can take advantage of the health benefits of physical activity and since the BIG GYM INDUSTRY will not provide a product at a price that all can afford we need to provide a means of allocating this resource to the disadvantaged. So I say TAX THEM. Thank you for the laugh. I needed it. |
![]() ![]() |
Member![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I am all for taxing the heck out of health club memberships in NY. Keep in mind that I live in Illinois, which probably has worse budget problems. For maximum irony, NY should tax health club memberships while repealing any taxes on junk food. I don't know about NY, but I assume Illinois will hire bankruptcy lawyers related to key legislators so we can die as we lived at a state level. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Bripod - 2009-03-10 10:20 AM It's posts like this why the sarc font was created. Some people just take things too literally. Really? You think that he thinks "our only hope is higher taxes"? Why would you assume the rest is literally meant too? Try settling down for a minute. Um, he DIDN'T use the sarc font, and I wasn't the only one who didn't think he was kidding. Oddly, I see you didn't jump down that poster's throat. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() wurkit_gurl - 2009-03-10 2:41 PM Bripod - 2009-03-10 10:20 AM It's posts like this why the sarc font was created. Some people just take things too literally. Really? You think that he thinks "our only hope is higher taxes"? Why would you assume the rest is literally meant too? Try settling down for a minute. Um, he DIDN'T use the sarc font, and I wasn't the only one who didn't think he was kidding. Oddly, I see you didn't jump down that poster's throat. I don't think he was either kidding or being sarcastic per se. I think he was trying to make a point. Sucks to be part of the group being targeted doesn't it. |
|