A Tax by Any Other Name…

Wdesklady1
Pat Rice checking in:

Yesterday was a tumultuous day both inside and out. Have you ever had days like that? It’s as if the thunderstorms blew through the house, and it’s all I can do to keep papers from flying away. Computers shut down, phone calls mount up, and frantic e-mails pass back and forth, and before I knew it, the day was over. Fortunately for me, I already had my blog sketched out, and it’s based on a humorous column so I can smile as I polish.

As some of you know, I’m an accountant as well as a writer, so I’m painfully aware of how numbers can be manipulated to prove all manner of argument, even if close scrutiny will reveal that both argument and numbers are specious.  Still, I’m capable of finding taxes humorous, and I thoroughly enjoyed this article on the transfat tax  from www.funnytimes.com.

The writer argues that instead of outlawing things that are bad for us, why not tax them, which makes total sense to me.  We already tax cigarettes and alcohol and gas.  Why not charge taxes on transfat if society has to pay for your ills?  If marijuana is our biggest cash crop, as the author claims, just think of all the mental hospitals we could build by taxing it!  Mjtax

But when he got down to taxing McMansions and Maseratis, he hit my history nerd nerve.  Taxing conspicuous consumption has been done.  The original taxes had absolutely nothing to do with taxing things that are bad for us and everything to do with taxing the rich, but if it works both ways…

So naturally, I had to dig out my tax research. The  window tax 
Windowtax
was the first attack on McMansions, seventeenth century style.  England passed a law in 1697 assessing a tax on buildings according to the number of windows and openings it had.  Any building with more than six windows got hit with a tax bill.  In its first year, the tax raised 1,200,000 pounds!  Just think of those castles and all their openings!  Heck, I wonder if an arrow slit counted?  Did the English quit building McMansions? Of course not. They just quit putting windows in them.  Or bricked up the old ones. Did the government quit taxing them? Of course not. They had so much fun that they increased the tax six times between 1747 and 1808 and never entirely got rid of it until 1851.  And the money was so lovely that France has a similar tax to this day.

Which teaches one to be very wary of suggesting taxes to governments!  Want to pay for a war? Peter the Great came up with a charming method of taxing  SOULS  to pay for his military might. Apparently,
only males had souls, and then, only if they weren’t part of the nobility and the clergy (what a broad-minded thinker was old Peter– the rich don’t have souls!), and you couldn’t prove you were soul-less (or even spineless) by leaving town, because thenPetergreat they taxed the town for your useless soul.  Better yet, if you were one of those old-fashioned types who didn’t accept Pete’s modern church beliefs, you got taxed double!  Not certain if Old Pete meant nature-worshippers had twice the soul, but I’m sure they were twice as much trouble as orthodox believers.

And Peter was such an imaginative man, he even taxed beards. Taxing conspicuous hair growth instead of consumption must have made it easy for the tax collectors! Guess he figured all those peasants were saving money by not going to a barber and ought to pay to support the haircut industry, although I’m pretty certain he put the tax to work by paying barbers to be soldiers.

Oh, and back to taxes on things that are bad for you—in 1795, William the Pitt the Younger, not a dull orWigtax
stupid man by any means, decided to tax wig and hair powder to pay for all those soldiers he had to keep buying. Maybe he thought all those good-looking young redcoats in their fancy wigs would be better off without them, because that’s more or less what happened. Rather than pay the tax, men whacked off their queues, thus ushering in the Regency era style of shorn locks and no powder. Of course, he also put a lot of wigmakers out of business…

And just to give you a little peek at the nakedy discussion going on behind the scenes in preparation for our anniversary blog next week, check out this amusing version of how Lady Godiva  talked her husband out of charging outrageous taxes by pulling off her outrageous stunt.  It makes a good tale, if nothing else.

All right, fire up your imaginations. What taxes would you charge to pay for our sins? Do you know of any modern taxes on sins?  (I do, but I’m biting my tongue.) 

80 thoughts on “A Tax by Any Other Name…”

  1. How about a tax each time the word “celebrity” is uttered, written, or printed? Can’t tell you how sick I am of that one!

    Reply
  2. How about a tax each time the word “celebrity” is uttered, written, or printed? Can’t tell you how sick I am of that one!

    Reply
  3. How about a tax each time the word “celebrity” is uttered, written, or printed? Can’t tell you how sick I am of that one!

    Reply
  4. How about a tax each time the word “celebrity” is uttered, written, or printed? Can’t tell you how sick I am of that one!

    Reply
  5. I really like Kaley Nick’s idea… tax the abuse of language! Wow, there would be a real gold mine. We could set up a media watch and charge producers and broadcasters really BIG fines, e.g. for pronouncing ‘nuclear’ nu-cue-lar. (We could ding the President himself for that one!) Among all the overblown language of newscasters, I’m especially tired of hearing that someone who’s been shot was “gunned down.” And what about sports announcers and the scores? Nobody ever just “beats” the other team anymore; they slam them, crush them, blast them, edge them (what does THAT mean?) and so on, ad nauseum. Yes, I definitely think a movement to stamp out the abuse of language through taxes is in order. If it worked for hair powder, it can work for us!

    Reply
  6. I really like Kaley Nick’s idea… tax the abuse of language! Wow, there would be a real gold mine. We could set up a media watch and charge producers and broadcasters really BIG fines, e.g. for pronouncing ‘nuclear’ nu-cue-lar. (We could ding the President himself for that one!) Among all the overblown language of newscasters, I’m especially tired of hearing that someone who’s been shot was “gunned down.” And what about sports announcers and the scores? Nobody ever just “beats” the other team anymore; they slam them, crush them, blast them, edge them (what does THAT mean?) and so on, ad nauseum. Yes, I definitely think a movement to stamp out the abuse of language through taxes is in order. If it worked for hair powder, it can work for us!

    Reply
  7. I really like Kaley Nick’s idea… tax the abuse of language! Wow, there would be a real gold mine. We could set up a media watch and charge producers and broadcasters really BIG fines, e.g. for pronouncing ‘nuclear’ nu-cue-lar. (We could ding the President himself for that one!) Among all the overblown language of newscasters, I’m especially tired of hearing that someone who’s been shot was “gunned down.” And what about sports announcers and the scores? Nobody ever just “beats” the other team anymore; they slam them, crush them, blast them, edge them (what does THAT mean?) and so on, ad nauseum. Yes, I definitely think a movement to stamp out the abuse of language through taxes is in order. If it worked for hair powder, it can work for us!

    Reply
  8. I really like Kaley Nick’s idea… tax the abuse of language! Wow, there would be a real gold mine. We could set up a media watch and charge producers and broadcasters really BIG fines, e.g. for pronouncing ‘nuclear’ nu-cue-lar. (We could ding the President himself for that one!) Among all the overblown language of newscasters, I’m especially tired of hearing that someone who’s been shot was “gunned down.” And what about sports announcers and the scores? Nobody ever just “beats” the other team anymore; they slam them, crush them, blast them, edge them (what does THAT mean?) and so on, ad nauseum. Yes, I definitely think a movement to stamp out the abuse of language through taxes is in order. If it worked for hair powder, it can work for us!

    Reply
  9. Hmm. . . well, you know that’s the only reason why cigarrettes are legal because they get a whole lot of tax money comes from them. But new ones. Hmm. I got one — taxes on spam. You want to send it, pay up. 🙂
    Lois

    Reply
  10. Hmm. . . well, you know that’s the only reason why cigarrettes are legal because they get a whole lot of tax money comes from them. But new ones. Hmm. I got one — taxes on spam. You want to send it, pay up. 🙂
    Lois

    Reply
  11. Hmm. . . well, you know that’s the only reason why cigarrettes are legal because they get a whole lot of tax money comes from them. But new ones. Hmm. I got one — taxes on spam. You want to send it, pay up. 🙂
    Lois

    Reply
  12. Hmm. . . well, you know that’s the only reason why cigarrettes are legal because they get a whole lot of tax money comes from them. But new ones. Hmm. I got one — taxes on spam. You want to send it, pay up. 🙂
    Lois

    Reply
  13. Ooooo, I knew we had clever readers. A tax on language! Perfect. If I had a penny for every time a newscaster said “actually”… I’d be sailing around the world right now.
    Wonder if we could collect taxes on spam sent from Nigeria? Can we tax them at the portals of the internet? Oops, that sounds like taxing e-mail, and boy, that will bring loads of you-know-what down on our heads!
    Now I’m wondering if we could only tax broadcast language or if we could tax published language and those appalling business memos where nouns become verbs…

    Reply
  14. Ooooo, I knew we had clever readers. A tax on language! Perfect. If I had a penny for every time a newscaster said “actually”… I’d be sailing around the world right now.
    Wonder if we could collect taxes on spam sent from Nigeria? Can we tax them at the portals of the internet? Oops, that sounds like taxing e-mail, and boy, that will bring loads of you-know-what down on our heads!
    Now I’m wondering if we could only tax broadcast language or if we could tax published language and those appalling business memos where nouns become verbs…

    Reply
  15. Ooooo, I knew we had clever readers. A tax on language! Perfect. If I had a penny for every time a newscaster said “actually”… I’d be sailing around the world right now.
    Wonder if we could collect taxes on spam sent from Nigeria? Can we tax them at the portals of the internet? Oops, that sounds like taxing e-mail, and boy, that will bring loads of you-know-what down on our heads!
    Now I’m wondering if we could only tax broadcast language or if we could tax published language and those appalling business memos where nouns become verbs…

    Reply
  16. Ooooo, I knew we had clever readers. A tax on language! Perfect. If I had a penny for every time a newscaster said “actually”… I’d be sailing around the world right now.
    Wonder if we could collect taxes on spam sent from Nigeria? Can we tax them at the portals of the internet? Oops, that sounds like taxing e-mail, and boy, that will bring loads of you-know-what down on our heads!
    Now I’m wondering if we could only tax broadcast language or if we could tax published language and those appalling business memos where nouns become verbs…

    Reply
  17. I vote we tax junk mail! Ugh. I ought to have a trashcan at the end of my driveway instead of a mailbox. Think of the trees that they’re killing and the landfills that are filling. Never mind that we pay for it! Junk mail is sent bulk (translate cheaper rates) while we, the first class stampers, are told we must shell out 2 more cents each time we want to send a legitimate piece of mail. Why? Because the Postal Service is in the hole. I say the rates should be reversed.
    Nina, off to check the “trashbox.”

    Reply
  18. I vote we tax junk mail! Ugh. I ought to have a trashcan at the end of my driveway instead of a mailbox. Think of the trees that they’re killing and the landfills that are filling. Never mind that we pay for it! Junk mail is sent bulk (translate cheaper rates) while we, the first class stampers, are told we must shell out 2 more cents each time we want to send a legitimate piece of mail. Why? Because the Postal Service is in the hole. I say the rates should be reversed.
    Nina, off to check the “trashbox.”

    Reply
  19. I vote we tax junk mail! Ugh. I ought to have a trashcan at the end of my driveway instead of a mailbox. Think of the trees that they’re killing and the landfills that are filling. Never mind that we pay for it! Junk mail is sent bulk (translate cheaper rates) while we, the first class stampers, are told we must shell out 2 more cents each time we want to send a legitimate piece of mail. Why? Because the Postal Service is in the hole. I say the rates should be reversed.
    Nina, off to check the “trashbox.”

    Reply
  20. I vote we tax junk mail! Ugh. I ought to have a trashcan at the end of my driveway instead of a mailbox. Think of the trees that they’re killing and the landfills that are filling. Never mind that we pay for it! Junk mail is sent bulk (translate cheaper rates) while we, the first class stampers, are told we must shell out 2 more cents each time we want to send a legitimate piece of mail. Why? Because the Postal Service is in the hole. I say the rates should be reversed.
    Nina, off to check the “trashbox.”

    Reply
  21. I love the idea of a tax on junk mail! And DOUBLE it on the ones that say “MUST BE DELIVERED TO…” or “OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS INSIDE, DO NOT THROW AWAY.” Like anything really important would WARN you.. uh-huh. Plus the old favorite “YOU HAVE ALREADY WON…” followed by the word ‘if’ in teensey-weensey print!
    Or how about a tax on useless appliances like electric can openers, tortilla warmers, all the ones that do something you can perfectly well do with your own muscles, assuming you have any muscles left after years of letting appliances to every little thing for you.
    Or… wait a minute, speaking of the toll of years of self-indulgence, speaking of sin, how about a tax on ICE CREAM? Next thing you know, people would be saying “when it gets up to $5 a scoop, I’m quitting.”
    And sugar! Caffeine!
    NACHO CHEESE FLAVORED DORITOS!!!!
    Gawd, I’m hungry…

    Reply
  22. I love the idea of a tax on junk mail! And DOUBLE it on the ones that say “MUST BE DELIVERED TO…” or “OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS INSIDE, DO NOT THROW AWAY.” Like anything really important would WARN you.. uh-huh. Plus the old favorite “YOU HAVE ALREADY WON…” followed by the word ‘if’ in teensey-weensey print!
    Or how about a tax on useless appliances like electric can openers, tortilla warmers, all the ones that do something you can perfectly well do with your own muscles, assuming you have any muscles left after years of letting appliances to every little thing for you.
    Or… wait a minute, speaking of the toll of years of self-indulgence, speaking of sin, how about a tax on ICE CREAM? Next thing you know, people would be saying “when it gets up to $5 a scoop, I’m quitting.”
    And sugar! Caffeine!
    NACHO CHEESE FLAVORED DORITOS!!!!
    Gawd, I’m hungry…

    Reply
  23. I love the idea of a tax on junk mail! And DOUBLE it on the ones that say “MUST BE DELIVERED TO…” or “OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS INSIDE, DO NOT THROW AWAY.” Like anything really important would WARN you.. uh-huh. Plus the old favorite “YOU HAVE ALREADY WON…” followed by the word ‘if’ in teensey-weensey print!
    Or how about a tax on useless appliances like electric can openers, tortilla warmers, all the ones that do something you can perfectly well do with your own muscles, assuming you have any muscles left after years of letting appliances to every little thing for you.
    Or… wait a minute, speaking of the toll of years of self-indulgence, speaking of sin, how about a tax on ICE CREAM? Next thing you know, people would be saying “when it gets up to $5 a scoop, I’m quitting.”
    And sugar! Caffeine!
    NACHO CHEESE FLAVORED DORITOS!!!!
    Gawd, I’m hungry…

    Reply
  24. I love the idea of a tax on junk mail! And DOUBLE it on the ones that say “MUST BE DELIVERED TO…” or “OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS INSIDE, DO NOT THROW AWAY.” Like anything really important would WARN you.. uh-huh. Plus the old favorite “YOU HAVE ALREADY WON…” followed by the word ‘if’ in teensey-weensey print!
    Or how about a tax on useless appliances like electric can openers, tortilla warmers, all the ones that do something you can perfectly well do with your own muscles, assuming you have any muscles left after years of letting appliances to every little thing for you.
    Or… wait a minute, speaking of the toll of years of self-indulgence, speaking of sin, how about a tax on ICE CREAM? Next thing you know, people would be saying “when it gets up to $5 a scoop, I’m quitting.”
    And sugar! Caffeine!
    NACHO CHEESE FLAVORED DORITOS!!!!
    Gawd, I’m hungry…

    Reply
  25. Tax any religious organization who then actively uses that organization to affect politics and government.
    You have an agenda? No more free bulk mail! Politicking on the TV pulpit? Tax those TV donor dollars.
    I sense the ground begin to move as the Founding Fathers spin… LOL (taxes, separation of church & state, and religious freedoms being near and dear)

    Reply
  26. Tax any religious organization who then actively uses that organization to affect politics and government.
    You have an agenda? No more free bulk mail! Politicking on the TV pulpit? Tax those TV donor dollars.
    I sense the ground begin to move as the Founding Fathers spin… LOL (taxes, separation of church & state, and religious freedoms being near and dear)

    Reply
  27. Tax any religious organization who then actively uses that organization to affect politics and government.
    You have an agenda? No more free bulk mail! Politicking on the TV pulpit? Tax those TV donor dollars.
    I sense the ground begin to move as the Founding Fathers spin… LOL (taxes, separation of church & state, and religious freedoms being near and dear)

    Reply
  28. Tax any religious organization who then actively uses that organization to affect politics and government.
    You have an agenda? No more free bulk mail! Politicking on the TV pulpit? Tax those TV donor dollars.
    I sense the ground begin to move as the Founding Fathers spin… LOL (taxes, separation of church & state, and religious freedoms being near and dear)

    Reply
  29. Well… if we’re going to tax sin food… why not drop the 50 cent/gal gasoline tax and tax Starbucks coffee drinks instead. Imagine the revenue!
    Nina, who is firmly decided that if they tax chocolate, she’s leaving.

    Reply
  30. Well… if we’re going to tax sin food… why not drop the 50 cent/gal gasoline tax and tax Starbucks coffee drinks instead. Imagine the revenue!
    Nina, who is firmly decided that if they tax chocolate, she’s leaving.

    Reply
  31. Well… if we’re going to tax sin food… why not drop the 50 cent/gal gasoline tax and tax Starbucks coffee drinks instead. Imagine the revenue!
    Nina, who is firmly decided that if they tax chocolate, she’s leaving.

    Reply
  32. Well… if we’re going to tax sin food… why not drop the 50 cent/gal gasoline tax and tax Starbucks coffee drinks instead. Imagine the revenue!
    Nina, who is firmly decided that if they tax chocolate, she’s leaving.

    Reply
  33. I have no idea why Typepad thinks I’m patrice mandelli. Is it creating a new character for me? Has it stolen my identity?
    But what I wanted to say was
    DON’T TAX ICE CREAM!!!!!!
    Noooooooooooo!!!!!
    Secretly, Pat Rice

    Reply
  34. I have no idea why Typepad thinks I’m patrice mandelli. Is it creating a new character for me? Has it stolen my identity?
    But what I wanted to say was
    DON’T TAX ICE CREAM!!!!!!
    Noooooooooooo!!!!!
    Secretly, Pat Rice

    Reply
  35. I have no idea why Typepad thinks I’m patrice mandelli. Is it creating a new character for me? Has it stolen my identity?
    But what I wanted to say was
    DON’T TAX ICE CREAM!!!!!!
    Noooooooooooo!!!!!
    Secretly, Pat Rice

    Reply
  36. I have no idea why Typepad thinks I’m patrice mandelli. Is it creating a new character for me? Has it stolen my identity?
    But what I wanted to say was
    DON’T TAX ICE CREAM!!!!!!
    Noooooooooooo!!!!!
    Secretly, Pat Rice

    Reply
  37. How about shoes?
    We could tax non-arch-supportive ones like flip-flops, AND ankle-breakers like platforms, AND bunion-makers like pointy-toed spike heels. It could be a sliding scale in proportion to future foot problems.
    Also we could tax pants and underwear. For women, the tax would apply if a thong was visible from the rear. For men, the tax would apply if more than 1/2 inch of underwear was visible over the pant line. Double tax if the pants are so low you can tell boxers or briefs. Triple tax if the underwear has Spongebobs on it.
    (My 10 year old daughter says “Can’t we just tax the icky 5th grade boys?”)

    Reply
  38. How about shoes?
    We could tax non-arch-supportive ones like flip-flops, AND ankle-breakers like platforms, AND bunion-makers like pointy-toed spike heels. It could be a sliding scale in proportion to future foot problems.
    Also we could tax pants and underwear. For women, the tax would apply if a thong was visible from the rear. For men, the tax would apply if more than 1/2 inch of underwear was visible over the pant line. Double tax if the pants are so low you can tell boxers or briefs. Triple tax if the underwear has Spongebobs on it.
    (My 10 year old daughter says “Can’t we just tax the icky 5th grade boys?”)

    Reply
  39. How about shoes?
    We could tax non-arch-supportive ones like flip-flops, AND ankle-breakers like platforms, AND bunion-makers like pointy-toed spike heels. It could be a sliding scale in proportion to future foot problems.
    Also we could tax pants and underwear. For women, the tax would apply if a thong was visible from the rear. For men, the tax would apply if more than 1/2 inch of underwear was visible over the pant line. Double tax if the pants are so low you can tell boxers or briefs. Triple tax if the underwear has Spongebobs on it.
    (My 10 year old daughter says “Can’t we just tax the icky 5th grade boys?”)

    Reply
  40. How about shoes?
    We could tax non-arch-supportive ones like flip-flops, AND ankle-breakers like platforms, AND bunion-makers like pointy-toed spike heels. It could be a sliding scale in proportion to future foot problems.
    Also we could tax pants and underwear. For women, the tax would apply if a thong was visible from the rear. For men, the tax would apply if more than 1/2 inch of underwear was visible over the pant line. Double tax if the pants are so low you can tell boxers or briefs. Triple tax if the underwear has Spongebobs on it.
    (My 10 year old daughter says “Can’t we just tax the icky 5th grade boys?”)

    Reply
  41. Our principal got on the PA system yesterday to remind the kids they’re still in school, not the beach. I say we tax each young lady for every navel, brastrap and boob exposure we have to witness. For the boys, they’re covering up TOO much—they won’t take their d*nm baseball caps off. You can tell, I’m ready for summer vacation. Right now I feel like I’m working in a semi-nudist colony with a bunch a minor leaguers.

    Reply
  42. Our principal got on the PA system yesterday to remind the kids they’re still in school, not the beach. I say we tax each young lady for every navel, brastrap and boob exposure we have to witness. For the boys, they’re covering up TOO much—they won’t take their d*nm baseball caps off. You can tell, I’m ready for summer vacation. Right now I feel like I’m working in a semi-nudist colony with a bunch a minor leaguers.

    Reply
  43. Our principal got on the PA system yesterday to remind the kids they’re still in school, not the beach. I say we tax each young lady for every navel, brastrap and boob exposure we have to witness. For the boys, they’re covering up TOO much—they won’t take their d*nm baseball caps off. You can tell, I’m ready for summer vacation. Right now I feel like I’m working in a semi-nudist colony with a bunch a minor leaguers.

    Reply
  44. Our principal got on the PA system yesterday to remind the kids they’re still in school, not the beach. I say we tax each young lady for every navel, brastrap and boob exposure we have to witness. For the boys, they’re covering up TOO much—they won’t take their d*nm baseball caps off. You can tell, I’m ready for summer vacation. Right now I feel like I’m working in a semi-nudist colony with a bunch a minor leaguers.

    Reply
  45. RevMelinda: You’re absolutely hilarious. I can hardly type, I’m laughing so much.
    I say, taxing those junk mailer, spammers, and crank callers is a capital idea. That’ll stop ’em.
    For heaven’s sake, please don’t tax coffee or chocolate or ice-cream or anything else that tastes good but is bad for you.

    Reply
  46. RevMelinda: You’re absolutely hilarious. I can hardly type, I’m laughing so much.
    I say, taxing those junk mailer, spammers, and crank callers is a capital idea. That’ll stop ’em.
    For heaven’s sake, please don’t tax coffee or chocolate or ice-cream or anything else that tastes good but is bad for you.

    Reply
  47. RevMelinda: You’re absolutely hilarious. I can hardly type, I’m laughing so much.
    I say, taxing those junk mailer, spammers, and crank callers is a capital idea. That’ll stop ’em.
    For heaven’s sake, please don’t tax coffee or chocolate or ice-cream or anything else that tastes good but is bad for you.

    Reply
  48. RevMelinda: You’re absolutely hilarious. I can hardly type, I’m laughing so much.
    I say, taxing those junk mailer, spammers, and crank callers is a capital idea. That’ll stop ’em.
    For heaven’s sake, please don’t tax coffee or chocolate or ice-cream or anything else that tastes good but is bad for you.

    Reply
  49. RevMelinda…. what would ‘tax avoidance’ behavior for an underwear sighting tax consist of? (I’d be scared… the ‘crack sighting’ frequency is bad enough right now with rise of low rise….)
    I’m still trying to think of something to tax….that might benefit the environment and society at large…. and not threaten my consumption of delectables….
    I know- tax commercials on all Media. By the second….

    Reply
  50. RevMelinda…. what would ‘tax avoidance’ behavior for an underwear sighting tax consist of? (I’d be scared… the ‘crack sighting’ frequency is bad enough right now with rise of low rise….)
    I’m still trying to think of something to tax….that might benefit the environment and society at large…. and not threaten my consumption of delectables….
    I know- tax commercials on all Media. By the second….

    Reply
  51. RevMelinda…. what would ‘tax avoidance’ behavior for an underwear sighting tax consist of? (I’d be scared… the ‘crack sighting’ frequency is bad enough right now with rise of low rise….)
    I’m still trying to think of something to tax….that might benefit the environment and society at large…. and not threaten my consumption of delectables….
    I know- tax commercials on all Media. By the second….

    Reply
  52. RevMelinda…. what would ‘tax avoidance’ behavior for an underwear sighting tax consist of? (I’d be scared… the ‘crack sighting’ frequency is bad enough right now with rise of low rise….)
    I’m still trying to think of something to tax….that might benefit the environment and society at large…. and not threaten my consumption of delectables….
    I know- tax commercials on all Media. By the second….

    Reply
  53. Oh, boy, have I laughed a lot this morning. RevMelinda and Elaine, you had me snorting coffee up my nose!
    I would like to see a tax on people who a) let their dogs bark incessantly, b) young men who drive their cars with the radio turned up so loud that the pavement throbs, and d) manuyfacturers that take a perfectly good appliance and “improve” it to the point you have to be a rocket scientist to operate it. My biggest tax would be applied to people who trample on the rights of others.
    And I fully agree with all of you who want a language tax. Heavy taxes on people who think “alot” is a word, and who say “excetera”!
    Pat (or Patrice!) I always cringe when someone starts a sentence with “actually,” because that means they are going to disagree with what I just said or wrote. *g* “Actually” is the literary equivalent of “excuse me, you pompous know-it-all, but I am going correct you publicly and to your maximum embarrassment, while showing how superior I am in intelligence.” *g*

    Reply
  54. Oh, boy, have I laughed a lot this morning. RevMelinda and Elaine, you had me snorting coffee up my nose!
    I would like to see a tax on people who a) let their dogs bark incessantly, b) young men who drive their cars with the radio turned up so loud that the pavement throbs, and d) manuyfacturers that take a perfectly good appliance and “improve” it to the point you have to be a rocket scientist to operate it. My biggest tax would be applied to people who trample on the rights of others.
    And I fully agree with all of you who want a language tax. Heavy taxes on people who think “alot” is a word, and who say “excetera”!
    Pat (or Patrice!) I always cringe when someone starts a sentence with “actually,” because that means they are going to disagree with what I just said or wrote. *g* “Actually” is the literary equivalent of “excuse me, you pompous know-it-all, but I am going correct you publicly and to your maximum embarrassment, while showing how superior I am in intelligence.” *g*

    Reply
  55. Oh, boy, have I laughed a lot this morning. RevMelinda and Elaine, you had me snorting coffee up my nose!
    I would like to see a tax on people who a) let their dogs bark incessantly, b) young men who drive their cars with the radio turned up so loud that the pavement throbs, and d) manuyfacturers that take a perfectly good appliance and “improve” it to the point you have to be a rocket scientist to operate it. My biggest tax would be applied to people who trample on the rights of others.
    And I fully agree with all of you who want a language tax. Heavy taxes on people who think “alot” is a word, and who say “excetera”!
    Pat (or Patrice!) I always cringe when someone starts a sentence with “actually,” because that means they are going to disagree with what I just said or wrote. *g* “Actually” is the literary equivalent of “excuse me, you pompous know-it-all, but I am going correct you publicly and to your maximum embarrassment, while showing how superior I am in intelligence.” *g*

    Reply
  56. Oh, boy, have I laughed a lot this morning. RevMelinda and Elaine, you had me snorting coffee up my nose!
    I would like to see a tax on people who a) let their dogs bark incessantly, b) young men who drive their cars with the radio turned up so loud that the pavement throbs, and d) manuyfacturers that take a perfectly good appliance and “improve” it to the point you have to be a rocket scientist to operate it. My biggest tax would be applied to people who trample on the rights of others.
    And I fully agree with all of you who want a language tax. Heavy taxes on people who think “alot” is a word, and who say “excetera”!
    Pat (or Patrice!) I always cringe when someone starts a sentence with “actually,” because that means they are going to disagree with what I just said or wrote. *g* “Actually” is the literary equivalent of “excuse me, you pompous know-it-all, but I am going correct you publicly and to your maximum embarrassment, while showing how superior I am in intelligence.” *g*

    Reply
  57. As a matter of fact… (I mean….Actually…) (-;
    How about a tax on Telemarketer calls, per second…..would take care of all the deficits and the excess could increase education and health care funding….

    Reply
  58. As a matter of fact… (I mean….Actually…) (-;
    How about a tax on Telemarketer calls, per second…..would take care of all the deficits and the excess could increase education and health care funding….

    Reply
  59. As a matter of fact… (I mean….Actually…) (-;
    How about a tax on Telemarketer calls, per second…..would take care of all the deficits and the excess could increase education and health care funding….

    Reply
  60. As a matter of fact… (I mean….Actually…) (-;
    How about a tax on Telemarketer calls, per second…..would take care of all the deficits and the excess could increase education and health care funding….

    Reply
  61. Can we tax pronunciation? Honestly? I’m so tired of hearing newscasters and television hosts mispronounce IMPORTANT. It’s im-por-tnt, not im-por-ent. There’s a “T” in the middle of the word. A “T” for heaven’s sake.
    I’d also like to see a hefty tax on the use of “disconnect” as a noun. It’s a transitive verb, people. If you’re looking for the noun it’s disconnecTION.
    Drives me batty.

    Reply
  62. Can we tax pronunciation? Honestly? I’m so tired of hearing newscasters and television hosts mispronounce IMPORTANT. It’s im-por-tnt, not im-por-ent. There’s a “T” in the middle of the word. A “T” for heaven’s sake.
    I’d also like to see a hefty tax on the use of “disconnect” as a noun. It’s a transitive verb, people. If you’re looking for the noun it’s disconnecTION.
    Drives me batty.

    Reply
  63. Can we tax pronunciation? Honestly? I’m so tired of hearing newscasters and television hosts mispronounce IMPORTANT. It’s im-por-tnt, not im-por-ent. There’s a “T” in the middle of the word. A “T” for heaven’s sake.
    I’d also like to see a hefty tax on the use of “disconnect” as a noun. It’s a transitive verb, people. If you’re looking for the noun it’s disconnecTION.
    Drives me batty.

    Reply
  64. Can we tax pronunciation? Honestly? I’m so tired of hearing newscasters and television hosts mispronounce IMPORTANT. It’s im-por-tnt, not im-por-ent. There’s a “T” in the middle of the word. A “T” for heaven’s sake.
    I’d also like to see a hefty tax on the use of “disconnect” as a noun. It’s a transitive verb, people. If you’re looking for the noun it’s disconnecTION.
    Drives me batty.

    Reply
  65. I would like to see a tax on bumper stickers. A modest tax on merely bragging about your honor student or advocating a political cantidate, but a HEFTY SUM for those obnoxious little boys peeing on a Ford logo, and mandatory community service for anyone whose sticker is unsuitable to be read by the first grader in the car behind them. Also, a tax per each on tatoos and piercings. And combovers. O-o-h and speedos , and baseball caps worn backwards by anyone over seven. Thank you.

    Reply
  66. I would like to see a tax on bumper stickers. A modest tax on merely bragging about your honor student or advocating a political cantidate, but a HEFTY SUM for those obnoxious little boys peeing on a Ford logo, and mandatory community service for anyone whose sticker is unsuitable to be read by the first grader in the car behind them. Also, a tax per each on tatoos and piercings. And combovers. O-o-h and speedos , and baseball caps worn backwards by anyone over seven. Thank you.

    Reply
  67. I would like to see a tax on bumper stickers. A modest tax on merely bragging about your honor student or advocating a political cantidate, but a HEFTY SUM for those obnoxious little boys peeing on a Ford logo, and mandatory community service for anyone whose sticker is unsuitable to be read by the first grader in the car behind them. Also, a tax per each on tatoos and piercings. And combovers. O-o-h and speedos , and baseball caps worn backwards by anyone over seven. Thank you.

    Reply
  68. I would like to see a tax on bumper stickers. A modest tax on merely bragging about your honor student or advocating a political cantidate, but a HEFTY SUM for those obnoxious little boys peeing on a Ford logo, and mandatory community service for anyone whose sticker is unsuitable to be read by the first grader in the car behind them. Also, a tax per each on tatoos and piercings. And combovers. O-o-h and speedos , and baseball caps worn backwards by anyone over seven. Thank you.

    Reply
  69. HEY! Back off my tattoos (though I might be persuaded to tax bad/flash tattoos, LOL!). If I have to pay a tax for my ink, I want the rest of America to have to pay a tax for wearing tennis shoes when not actively involved in an athletic pursuit.

    Reply
  70. HEY! Back off my tattoos (though I might be persuaded to tax bad/flash tattoos, LOL!). If I have to pay a tax for my ink, I want the rest of America to have to pay a tax for wearing tennis shoes when not actively involved in an athletic pursuit.

    Reply
  71. HEY! Back off my tattoos (though I might be persuaded to tax bad/flash tattoos, LOL!). If I have to pay a tax for my ink, I want the rest of America to have to pay a tax for wearing tennis shoes when not actively involved in an athletic pursuit.

    Reply
  72. HEY! Back off my tattoos (though I might be persuaded to tax bad/flash tattoos, LOL!). If I have to pay a tax for my ink, I want the rest of America to have to pay a tax for wearing tennis shoes when not actively involved in an athletic pursuit.

    Reply
  73. Hmmm, a tax on tailgaters might earn some hefty funds.
    I’ve been hit five times, each time at a stop sign or red light. *Throws up hands*
    Except for the one time I broke for an ambulance and was rear-ended by a shortbus full of mentally challenged children. (If I put that in a book, no one would believe it!)
    Don’t worry, the kids were fine. But I’ve had several paid-for cars killed off in this fashion. Grrr.

    Reply
  74. Hmmm, a tax on tailgaters might earn some hefty funds.
    I’ve been hit five times, each time at a stop sign or red light. *Throws up hands*
    Except for the one time I broke for an ambulance and was rear-ended by a shortbus full of mentally challenged children. (If I put that in a book, no one would believe it!)
    Don’t worry, the kids were fine. But I’ve had several paid-for cars killed off in this fashion. Grrr.

    Reply
  75. Hmmm, a tax on tailgaters might earn some hefty funds.
    I’ve been hit five times, each time at a stop sign or red light. *Throws up hands*
    Except for the one time I broke for an ambulance and was rear-ended by a shortbus full of mentally challenged children. (If I put that in a book, no one would believe it!)
    Don’t worry, the kids were fine. But I’ve had several paid-for cars killed off in this fashion. Grrr.

    Reply
  76. Hmmm, a tax on tailgaters might earn some hefty funds.
    I’ve been hit five times, each time at a stop sign or red light. *Throws up hands*
    Except for the one time I broke for an ambulance and was rear-ended by a shortbus full of mentally challenged children. (If I put that in a book, no one would believe it!)
    Don’t worry, the kids were fine. But I’ve had several paid-for cars killed off in this fashion. Grrr.

    Reply

Leave a Comment