Pet taxes

[PeZook]

Either use compostable plastics, or waxed paper combined with a large amount of poop disposal sites.

Also, apply significant dog ownership taxes to reduce the number of pets in cities.

[LaCroix]

We have a Cardboard/Paper scoop-up model in circulation around here...

Only picture of instructions I found.

You put it over it, pull the flaps and it picks up automatically....


-- This thread is about a lawsuit and its legal, consumer and financial repercussions, not the various ways in which a person can collect dog shit. - Lagmonster

[aieeegrunt]

Either use compostable plastics, or waxed paper combined with a large amount of poop disposal sites.

Also, apply significant dog ownership taxes to reduce the number of pets in cities.

On behalf of dog owners everywhere; hey buddy, go fuck youself!

I'd say just outright ban these bags. Canada recently introduced a 5 cent fee for plastic bags, I wonder how much of a deterrant that actually is. If I was the "fuck it, convenience" type, am I really going to notice the extra 20 cents on a hundred dollar grocery bill?

Probably not.

What I'd really like to see is a scanner that can scan through a bag and pick up all the items in it. So I go to the store, fill my reusable bags, throw them on the conveyor, it scans them en masse, I pay the cashier. That would absolutely get the "Fuck it, convenience" on board.

[Molyneux]

Also, apply significant dog ownership taxes to reduce the number of pets in cities.

As another dog owner: fuck right off.

Something like the 5-cent charge on bags sounds like a good way to discourage use of the disposables, though I'd expect it to be a modest effect.

[Terralthra]

Also, apply significant dog ownership taxes to reduce the number of pets in cities.

As another dog owner: fuck right off.

Something like the 5-cent charge on bags sounds like a good way to discourage use of the disposables, though I'd expect it to be a modest effect.

He didn't say you had to pay a tax, he only said you have to pay a doggie tax if you live in a city, which isn't necessarily wrong. Dogs shit and piss all over things when you take them for walks, costing other residents of the city more in both fiscal terms (paying for sidewalks, plants, hydrants etc. to be clean) and emotional terms (having to smell dog piss and shit when they walk around).

Do you have a counterargument besides "I like my dog, fuck you?"

[Eulogy]

So... What happens if the single-use guys win? They systematically go after everyone else? Then after consumers who make their own reusable bags? Mandate use of single-use bags?

They make an inferior product - they don't hold as much as many other bags, they are prone to splitting and dumping their contents, they're uncomfortable to hold.... I'm not sure why they're even as popular as they are. If demand drops that's not the competition's problem, or at least it shouldn't be.

Split from the discussion on the lawsuit against Chicobags. - Lagmonster

Police will not enforce anti-reusable bag laws. The shitcorps honestly expect people to follow suit and pay fines, but the lawsuits will be seen as the greed it is and people will flout them, and when they get fined they won't pay fines. Police will also not bother to collect those fines or jail people for not using disposables, because they are consumers too and jailing people for this will be a huge waste of time and resources.

It won't stick and eventually the people will strike back.

Do you have a counterargument besides "I like my dog, fuck you?"

You are assuming that dogs have to relieve themselves on public property. Besides, piss evaporates and gets washed away by rain, and poop will decompose (not that owners shouldn't pick up after their pets).

[Alyeska]

Also, apply significant dog ownership taxes to reduce the number of pets in cities.

As another dog owner: fuck right off.

Something like the 5-cent charge on bags sounds like a good way to discourage use of the disposables, though I'd expect it to be a modest effect.

He didn't say you had to pay a tax, he only said you have to pay a doggie tax if you live in a city, which isn't necessarily wrong. Dogs shit and piss all over things when you take them for walks, costing other residents of the city more in both fiscal terms (paying for sidewalks, plants, hydrants etc. to be clean) and emotional terms (having to smell dog piss and shit when they walk around).

Do you have a counterargument besides "I like my dog, fuck you?"

No. He said more than that. He wants a significant tax added for the specific purpose of making the dogs go away. Thats anti-dog. Which is a slap in the face to every owner. Don't like something and can't ban it? Tax it out of existence! PeZook might as well have just said ban dogs for everyone but the rich.

[Bluewolf]

The fact of the matter is that you don't need to a tax on dogs to bring down back usage. People can easily use other methods of scooping up waste than plastic bags. To bring a canine tag in the area of "bag reduction" is odd and really should be a separate point. I wouldn't advocate it anyway. It penalizes current pet owners and ignores the potential benefits owning a dog can have (exercise, companionship etc). There are other ways to bring down bag usage then attack dog owners with excessive taxation.

[Formless]

No. He said more than that. He wants a significant tax added for the specific purpose of making the dogs go away. Thats anti-dog. Which is a slap in the face to every owner. Don't like something and can't ban it? Tax it out of existence! PeZook might as well have just said ban dogs for everyone but the rich.

He said pets, Alyeska. And he made it explicit that he intended this to only apply to cities, not suburbs. Frankly, there are already restrictions on pets in cities, so I'm not sure what makes that so unreasonable.

But then, "waaah, think of my dog!"

[Bluewolf]

OK, pets, that makes it more balanced but Formless, I must wonder what extra restrictions would you need to impose above the tight ones already existing in many cities. If we want to reduce disposable plastic bag usage then we can by other means; unless this is separate to the plastic bag issue.

[Formless]

Well, obviously, and I'll let PeZook speak for himself. I just find it hilarious how quick dog owners are to whip themselves into a fury over the slightest offense, even when they aren't actually being singled out. Personally, if I had to live closer to or in the city I don't think I would have any pets, as a matter of convenience.

Edit: also, equating a tax with a ban is terminally stupid. Like, lolbertarian level stupid.

[Bluewolf]

Agree with you there, PeZook could you please elaborate on why you think pets should be taxed and if so, in what fashion and in what areas.

[Terralthra]

Do you have a counterargument besides "I like my dog, fuck you?"

You are assuming that dogs have to relieve themselves on public property. Besides, piss evaporates and gets washed away by rain, and poop will decompose (not that owners shouldn't pick up after their pets).

If you have a yard large enough to walk your dog in such that s/he won't relieve her/himself on public property in a city, I think you can probably afford a tiny fee.

No. He said more than that. He wants a significant tax added for the specific purpose of making the dogs go away. Thats anti-dog. Which is a slap in the face to every owner. Don't like something and can't ban it? Tax it out of existence! PeZook might as well have just said ban dogs for everyone but the rich.

Discouraging dogs in cities. You know, places where there aren't big yards for them to shit in attached to every house.

Do we have different definitions of city going on here? People in cities generally don't have yards, or if they do, it's at best courtyard shared with many other tenants in an apartment/condo complex. The only people with yards in cities are extremely rich.

As for "pets," my cat doesn't need to be walked, doesn't go out of the house, and shits/pisses in the litter box, always, and I still paid a pet fee when I lived in Fremont. As far as I know, the fee goes towards paying for animal shelters and animal control. In my current city of residence, there is no required fee for cats, but there is one for dogs.

[Alyeska]

No. He said more than that. He wants a significant tax added for the specific purpose of making the dogs go away. Thats anti-dog. Which is a slap in the face to every owner. Don't like something and can't ban it? Tax it out of existence! PeZook might as well have just said ban dogs for everyone but the rich.

He said pets, Alyeska. And he made it explicit that he intended this to only apply to cities, not suburbs. Frankly, there are already restrictions on pets in cities, so I'm not sure what makes that so unreasonable.

But then, "waaah, think of my dog!"

Is that so?

Also, apply significant dog ownership taxes to reduce the number of pets in cities.

Just "pets" you say? The wording and intent is clear.

FYI, I don't own a dog.

[PeZook]

No. He said more than that. He wants a significant tax added for the specific purpose of making the dogs go away. Thats anti-dog. Which is a slap in the face to every owner. Don't like something and can't ban it? Tax it out of existence! PeZook might as well have just said ban dogs for everyone but the rich.

No, I actually said I want to apply taxes to reduce the number of pets inside cities, not make them go away. Yeah, I said "dog taxes", but this should also apply to cats at the very least. Like it or not, dogs and cats are the two biggest nuisances, and cities have a certain carrying capacity for both, either because they lack infrastructure to properly dispose of their waste, or areas where pets that have to be can be walked properly etc. The tax should be applied by city authorities and structured in such a way as to keep pet numbers manageable, perhaps spent on improving infrastructure, deploying things like doggie toilets, social ad campaigns...

But of course pet owners will see it as an assault on their precious pets,which I suppose they have an inalienable right to own wherever they live. Cities use taxes to discourage certain behavior all the time. There's parking fees in city centres, car bans, jacked up property taxes, environmental fees, trash disposal fees...what, exactly, is unreasonable about trying to manage the numbers of dogs and cats as well? Do they not produce waste? Do they not cause costs?

Then again, it's pretty much off topic, since poop collecting is only a fraction of a percent of total plastic bag use, so any reductions in that area are insignificant for the grand problem.

[Alyeska]

No. He said more than that. He wants a significant tax added for the specific purpose of making the dogs go away. Thats anti-dog. Which is a slap in the face to every owner. Don't like something and can't ban it? Tax it out of existence! PeZook might as well have just said ban dogs for everyone but the rich.

No, I actually said I want to apply taxes to reduce the number of pets inside cities, not make them go away. Yeah, I said "dog taxes", but this should also apply to cats at the very least. Like it or not, dogs and cats are the two biggest nuisances, and cities have a certain carrying capacity for both, either because they lack infrastructure to properly dispose of their waste, or areas where pets that have to be can be walked properly etc. The tax should be applied by city authorities and structured in such a way as to keep pet numbers manageable, perhaps spent on improving infrastructure, deploying things like doggie toilets, social ad campaigns...

But of course pet owners will see it as an assault on their precious pets,which I suppose they have an inalienable right to own wherever they live. Cities use taxes to discourage certain behavior all the time. There's parking fees in city centres, car bans, jacked up property taxes, environmental fees, trash disposal fees...what, exactly, is unreasonable about trying to manage the numbers of dogs and cats as well? Do they not produce waste? Do they not cause costs?

Then again, it's pretty much off topic, since poop collecting is only a fraction of a percent of total plastic bag use, so any reductions in that area are insignificant for the grand problem.

The city should work to support the pets, not the other way around. Its the failing of the city to not adapt to the demands of the people who live in it. The government shouldn't be attempting to punish pet owners. Attempting to force the numbers to reduce is a deliberate attempt at negative reinforcement. Punishment. Taxes for improved pet facilities is good. Taxes for the sake of getting rid of pets is bad. The city is punishing people for failing to address their needs.

[AMT]

How is it punishing a pet owner to pay a fee to have their pets side effects maintained?
Is it a punishment to tax car owners for owning a car? Is it a punishment to have property taxes?
A small fee for animals isn't a punishment, it's a way to help defray costs incurred due to them.

[Alyeska]

How is it punishing a pet owner to pay a fee to have their pets side effects maintained?

It is punishment if the intent is to discourage people from owning pets. It is NOT punishment if the intent is to cover the costs to support the pets.

Is it a punishment to tax car owners for owning a car? Is it a punishment to have property taxes?
A small fee for animals isn't a punishment, it's a way to help defray costs incurred due to them.

If the tax is intended to be expensive in order to discourage you from owning a car in the first place because the city doesn't want to repave roads, thats punishment. If the tax is intended to pay for repaving roads, its fair.

[AMT]

Reading Comprehension failure on my part. Yes, a punitive tax is exactly that. *Goes back to corner*

[PeZook]

It is punishment if the intent is to discourage people from owning pets. It is NOT punishment if the intent is to cover the costs to support the pets.

What if the city just plain can't support any more pets?

You can only add facilities up to a certain level, after which their utility diminishes towards zero. Dogs must be walked ; Many cities have limited space to do so. There's only so many places you can use for parks, and people who don't own pets would probably want to use them, too.

Same with cars ; Do you argue historical cities like,say, Bern or London should just conform to the wishes of their residents, who very often want to drive and park their cars all over the historical sites as a matter of convenience? At some point roads and parking lots just can't take the traffic, however good they are ; So cities institute taxes and parking fees to encourage people to use public transit instead.

On a wider scale, countries apply sales taxes to discourage excessive consumption ; Carbon taxes to limit greenhouse gas emissions ; Alcohol and tobacco taxes to offset health costs and discourage excessive use. And, finally, this very thread is discussing possibilities of taxing or shaming people out of their environmentally damaging habits. Shouldn't countries conform to the wishes of their people? Companies would love to pollute without limit, after all, and their owners vote, too!

Taxes are used for behavior modification all the time ; The mere fact they are a negative reinforcement does not make them unjust by definition. You can easily write exemptions for the elderly or disabled so that they won't have to pay the tax and thus could enjoy the benefits of owning a pet; In fact, that's exactly what my city does. It only applies to one animal, though - have more, you pay the tax on those extra ones.

[Alyeska]

It is punishment if the intent is to discourage people from owning pets. It is NOT punishment if the intent is to cover the costs to support the pets.

What if the city just plain can't support any more pets?

You can only add facilities up to a certain level, after which their utility diminishes towards zero. Dogs must be walked ; Many cities have limited space to do so. There's only so many places you can use for parks, and people who don't own pets would probably want to use them, too.

Same with cars ; Do you argue historical cities like,say, Bern or London should just conform to the wishes of their residents, who very often want to drive and park their cars all over the historical sites as a matter of convenience? At some point roads and parking lots just can't take the traffic, however good they are ; So cities institute taxes and parking fees to encourage people to use public transit instead.

On a wider scale, countries apply sales taxes to discourage excessive consumption ; Carbon taxes to limit greenhouse gas emissions ; Alcohol and tobacco taxes to offset health costs and discourage excessive use. And, finally, this very thread is discussing possibilities of taxing or shaming people out of their environmentally damaging habits. Shouldn't countries conform to the wishes of their people? Companies would love to pollute without limit, after all, and their owners vote, too!

Taxes are used for behavior modification all the time ; The mere fact they are a negative reinforcement does not make them unjust by definition. You can easily write exemptions for the elderly or disabled so that they won't have to pay the tax and thus could enjoy the benefits of owning a pet; In fact, that's exactly what my city does. It only applies to one animal, though - have more, you pay the tax on those extra ones.

And how do you know this limit has even been reached? You just outright declared all cities should start punishing dog owners, period. I live in a city of 65,000 people. Do I have the same concerns as someone in New York? I too live in a city, and I disagree. My concerns are not the same as yours. My environment is not the same as yours. Your wording implied universal application.

Justify there is a pet problem that requires negative reinforcement.

[Simon_Jester]

I see no problem with a pet tax that covers the costs to the community of the consequences of adding one pet to the community.

If cleaning up excess dog shit, plus wandering cats pissing all over everything, plus other assorted nuisance factors, costs the city 100 million dollars a year, and there are a million pets in the city, it is not at all unreasonable for the city to charge a pet tax of roughly 100 dollars.

Charging a pet tax of 1000 dollars a year, in an attempt to strongly discourage pet ownership, would strike me as unfair and punitive, because the social costs of the pets aren't that high- if they were, it would cost the city roughly one billion a year, not 100 million.

Charging a pet tax of 10 dollars a year, much less than the costs to the city of dealing with the pets, would likewise strike me as unfair and punitive, but in the opposite direction: it penalizes the average taxpayer to support the pets. That opens itself up to commons-spoiling: the number of pet owners increases, public spaces become overcrowded with pets, the number of stray animals increases, and quality of life in the city declines. Not good.

Now, these are purely example numbers, not representative samples. But I hope my argument is clear- I think it is entirely reasonable for the city to tax pets, because pets cost the city and the cost must be paid by someone. But I do not think it is reasonable to make the tax greatly in excess of the costs incurred by the city, which you'd probably have to do in order to make a serious dent in the number of pets in the city.

[aieeegrunt]

What kind of fucking rabbit hutch hive world nightmares do you people live in where you can't have space for a dog? Don't start with the backpeddling now, the original statement was clearly "punative to discourage and eliminate". Well, I'd like a punative penalty to discourage all the disgusting fatties I see who are also giant liabilities to our health care system, that's a far far greater and more readily demonstrable societal harm than stepping in dog poop.

Getting back to the bags..........

[Terralthra]

And how do you know this limit has even been reached? You just outright declared all cities should start punishing dog owners, period. I live in a city of 65,000 people. Do I have the same concerns as someone in New York? I too live in a city, and I disagree. My concerns are not the same as yours. My environment is not the same as yours. Your wording implied universal application.

Justify there is a pet problem that requires negative reinforcement.

This must be some kind of joke. You live in what, Missoula? You call Missoula a city? There are literally two score towns that size surrounding SF. We call them "suburbs." As in suburban. Not in the city proper.

I just looked up the relative population density - Missoula has just shy of three thousand people per square mile, SF has SEVENTEEN thousand per square mile.

The idea that the problems confronted by what would be a bedroom community here are even in the same category as those faced by an actual urban environment is laughable on its face.

---

Additionally, the idea that the intent of a tax is somehow relevant is also silly. Whether or not a tax/fee is intended to pay for additional services and facilities is irrelevant. If the fee is at all significant, by any reasonable definition, there will be some edge case pet owner who could afford a pet, but can't afford the fee. All excise and targeted taxes, whether directly related to service/facility or not, are in effect going to discourage the taxed product or activity to some degree, and you have provided exactly zero reason why this is bad.

[Bluewolf]

PeZook, I am curious. Do you have any particular sources to show the costs that pets and their assorted waste bring in large urban areas. I know this debate is partially about the principle of such a fee but it would be interesting if you could show the potential costs upon cities pets bring and, in my mind, it'd help your case for why you think such a pet tax is justified.